Dear Readers: Please don’t be intimidated at the length of this topic, nor let it prevent you from posting your opinions on (Not) Voting. There are many fresh ideas on this subject that we’re missing, so we need you. No, you do not have to read every page to post. However, if you don’t read everything, then please be humble in realizing that you may have missed something; some of us have read everything. Of course, if you do read most of it, then you’ll be that much further along in realizing what we need specifically.
I’d like to give you a suggestion for a valid approach to posting here. Randomly pick 2 pages of this Frihost topic and at least skim through most of the posts there. Then pick 1 post that strikes you as something with which you disagree and argue against it. Or pick 1 post that you’d like to add some furthering thoughts not mentioned. Or, if you have a (seemingly) brand new thought, write and post that.
Remember, if your comment would be better understood by your readers if they knew the context of a post to which you’re referring, then make sure you use the Frihost method of quoting at least part of that other post. You might also mention the page number so we can reference the full write-up.
I have more to add to “the record” here, myself, and can only do so when others have posted in-between.
(This red note was added on 8 Feb 2006 when 13 pages of this topic existed.)
~~~~~~~~~~
In a context of freedom, particularly of speech, I was recently unsuccessful at stirring up some discussion on the reasonableness of not voting (see the whole thread at http://www.frihost.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14434). So now I’m going to go for it more directly. Here is a snippet of an article entitled “Voting Is Evil”, which you can read in its entirety at http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds223.html. | Brad Edmonds wrote: |
The other LRC writers have made the case perfectly well, but sometimes in a subtle fashion, within articles that discuss, e.g., the major political parties. I’d like to make the point absolutely black and white. Here it is:
Voting is evil.
Abstaining from voting is good.
Voting is nothing more than a legal but immoral act of violent aggression. Abstaining from voting is the voluntary omission of a legal act of violent aggression, when indeed your vote could have resulted in more government handouts for you. Abstaining from voting is, in effect, making a personal sacrifice (however academic) in service of upholding an important moral principle. |
The USA in particular has evolved to the point where, very often, people who vote are voting against some politician or government program rather than for something they truly believe is good. They believe (incorrectly) that voting for the best of two bads helps. I say, in the long run (and the long run is what matters), it does not help. Voting for a “better” bad gives more power and more legitimacy to the whole political system, which is just that, political.
Politicians, as a whole, would much rather have you vote against them than to have you not vote at all. (If you don’t yet believe that, pay more attention to their own statements on voting.) Why? Because the more people who vote, the more the politicians can claim a public mandate for the horrendous power-grabbing acts they do.
What do you think? (Please give us some intelligent reasoning with your opinions, not just short quips without any support.)
Last edited by The Philosopher Princess on Wed Feb 08, 2006 11:33 pm; edited 1 time in totalVoting legitimizes citizenship in a country with an elected government. In countries without an elected government, obviously, voting is irrelevant. So.. if one were to argue that abstinence of voting makes a statement. Then I would agree only on the basis that the statement is of apathy for the government as status quo. Will that solve anything? No, because nothing is absolute. Generally speaking, there are two opposing forces that serve to strengthen/weaken a government. Nationalism (and the creation of it) is a measure of government strength. On the other hand, devolutionary forces (or the creation of it) serve to weaken government. What you propose does not strengthen nor weaken government. You do not vote therefore you do not change the current administration (to weaken or strengthen it). You, in principle, have made your citizenship irrelevant.
Now for the sake of argument let us say that a significant proportion (never a hundred percent, as that is an impossibility) of the population were to follow you and not vote. What would we call that? reality. Only 50-60% of registered voters in the US, in the last election actually voted.
http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2004.htm This figure has not changed much from previous years either.
So, if you are unhappy with the current state of affairs in a country (that believes in peaceful transition of government through election), you have three impactful ways to change your existence:
1. lead/follow a revolution to change government --- hardly a practical choice.
2. move out of the country --- you wouldn't be the first one to do it...
3. vote --- you would be the few that do. illini319 gives us a very thoughtful comment, fully worth considering. I address just 1 part at the moment. | illini319 wrote: |
| What you propose does not strengthen nor weaken government. |
If that is true, then how do you account for politicians and other pro-big-government people continually marketing the notion: “Get out and vote -- no matter how you vote, you really need to vote -- it’s your patriotic duty!”?
What do you think they are scared of would happen if people didn’t vote?
Asked another way: If (as is consistent with your view) the act of voting, itself, does not give politicians the mandates they seek (even when voters don’t intend such mandates because they’re voting against someone else, rather than for someone), then why do the politicians prefer people to vote, no matter how they vote? If voting really makes the country better, why is the country in such a shambles?
(For those younguns 
who don’t think it’s in a shambles, but who want freedom, please do some research to compare the amount of freedom people used to have versus today. But don’t mix up freedom with technology and other time-saving improvements.)
Would it really be better if those who don't vote did? If someone here really believes this, I'd like to see some reasoning for why.
Who can deny that voting is by no means our only method towards improving the world? Well, if there are other ways, then why is voting given such a reverent status? Could it be that the leaders want people to believe that their voting has done some good, and thus will then feel less inclined towards looking into other methods? | The Philosopher Princess wrote: |
| Asked another way: If (as is consistent with your view) the act of voting, itself, does not give politicians the mandates they seek (even when voters don’t intend such mandates because they’re voting against someone else, rather than for someone), then why do the politicians prefer people to vote, no matter how they vote? |
I do not think that this is entirely true. In any given election, political parties target specific regions because, demographically speaking, those particular regions slant towards their interests. Hence, if every able person in that entire region were to vote, there is a high likelihood that that particular political party wins. This is due, in large part, to our electoral college system. In its most distilled sense, elections (in the US)are won and lost in swing states. Red states are red states, as has been deemed by numerous polls that precede elections. Blue states are blue states, by the same token. Those states which waffle (either historically) or by recent poll analysis are the 'war states.' Of greater interest are those swing states that are most populous as they carry with them a greater number of electoral votes.
So... political parties will target particular voting districts within one state that are congenial to their interests. They will then blitz this region with endless political propaganda and 'get everyone to vote, for the sake of patriotism.' And, as mentioned above, because these political machines know the demographic of this region, getting everyone to vote really just means,"We hope everyone votes because a majority of this region is progressive (or conservative)." | The Philosopher Princess wrote: |
| If voting really makes the country better, why is the country in such a shambles? |
the tragedy of the commons.
voting does not make a country better (or weaker). Voting only serves to change (or keep) the current policies of a country. If, for example, a nation votes in a president that believes that blind loyalty, cronyism, and fear-mongering are perfectly acceptable, then the nation reaps what they sow. <---- the tragedy part. | illini319 wrote: |
voting does not make a country better (or weaker). Voting only serves to change (or keep) the current policies of a country. If, for example, a nation votes in a president that believes that blind loyalty, cronyism, and fear-mongering are perfectly acceptable, then the nation reaps what they sow. <---- the tragedy part. |
That is exactly why voting is important. In times of need and over time, the policies of a counrty must change in order to be socially, politically, economically, and technologically viable. Any country that does not adhere to this type of change is outcasted, and in terms of today, we call these types of countries "third world".What about the following situation. You need to choose between 3 candidates:
Person A: stupid and corrupt, you hate him
Person B: stupid and corrupt, you hate him (another one)
Person C: Hitler
Would you vote? I would. 
Exactly. If you didn't vote then people might consider you partially responsable for "Hitler" getting into power.
Besides, I thought "stupid and corrupt" was a given in any politician these days. Here’s another quote from the original article. | Brad Edmonds of LewRockwell.com wrote: |
| Once you finally let go of your childhood emotional attachment (this is not an insult; we all do it) to one political party or another; and once you let go of the romance that our nation’s founders were not only heroic (they were), but right about everything (they weren’t), then what becomes counterintuitive is all the debate on network and cable news about the differences between one political party and another. They’re all wrong, and all immoral. |
The “regular” news media also has it in their interest for citizens to believe voting is important. It adds to their stories, as if their stories are important. And sometimes (often?) those stories take attention away from what really is important.
I realize that: Not Voting is Politically Incorrect! That’s why it takes some extra thinking power to get past what we think we know. It takes work to separate out what really is the truth from what is currently popular.
I appreciate the comments so far, and will address some of them as I have time. In the mean time, I’d also like to hear from some people who don’t yet have gelled opinions on this, or who are willing to rethink through this issue. Anyone who is not quite sure, but is both humble, when appropriate, and sincere has nothing to fear (from me, anyway). Well...trying living in Australia...as soon as you turn 18, you are required to vote at all levels of government, federal, state and local. I had to vote twice in the local government elections because the state government decided several councils had to merge 
.
It's a pain in the arse, but I'd rather that than having to live in a dictatorship. Mind you, the way Howard and co. are running things, those two things might not be so different after all 
Oh man, Big Dan, am I glad you showed up! | bigdan wrote: |
| in Australia...as soon as you turn 18, you are required to vote at all levels of government[...] |
Your experience helps make my point beautifully. Pro-government people in Australia got so scared of what would happen if people didn’t vote, that they banded together to use the power of government to force people to vote. That is mob rule.
Talk about lack of freedom of speech! A grown, sane, intelligent adult can’t even make his/her own choice to vote or not vote. This is the opposite of freedom.
You guys think that’s just Australia -- it can’t happen in the USA? Think again. Some people would love to force voting.
Why do they need to force voting? Because the act of voting, itself, gives them the legitimacy they need to continue force in other areas. At http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/idea/949 is just one of many examples you can find if you care, where people want to force voting. | Courtney R. at SinceSlicedBread.com wrote: |
| We live in a representative democracy where many people choose not to exercise their power to vote. I think we should institute mandatory voting. |
The slippery slope away from freedom is sliding right under our noses. | The Philosopher Princess wrote: |
| Talk about lack of freedom of speech! A grown, sane, intelligent adult can’t even make his/her own choice to vote or not vote. This is the opposite of freedom. |
I don't know about Australia, but in Belgium we are forced to show up for elections, but not to vote.Let me clarify what I said:
I wasnt saying that the actual act of voting is important. I was saying that the ability to vote and represent your nation, whether it be through not voting or voting for some stupid republican (cough...Bush... cough) is the thing that is important. If any country takes any part of that right away from you, whether it be through dictatorship, monarchy, or communistic rule, it is immoral and unjust.
I agree that voting between two bads is just as bad as only having one bad to vote for, but if you arent given the choice to change the two bads or are not able to even choose if that bad is the bad that you want then your country is lowered to that of a dictatorship, etc.
I am a big advocate of voting. The only way to hold these politicians accountable for their actions is the voting ballot.
When enough politicians see that if they go against what the People want they will lose their job (i.e.- get fired by the voters).
I'm not for forced voting, just getting people to care enough to take action.
Oh, and Philosopher Princess, just what country are you referring to that is in shambles?
With the following, I cannot agree. | Phil wrote: |
| The only way to hold these politicians accountable for their actions is the voting ballot. |
First of all, it’s not the only way to hold them accountable. Publicizing the shameful acts of politicians in the media can be extremely effective. Some even quit in disgrace. If each person who has faith in voting, instead used their influential ability to help publicize corrupt acts of a politicians, we could have many more quitting in disgrace.
Grassroots campaigns using the internet, which can gain snowball momentum if people want, could do so much more than a few votes against someone.
Secondly, voting against politicians does not hold them accountable. Some of them lose -- so what!? They go onto other political races and/or use their new clout to influence special interests where they will gain. Just because someone loses a race does not mean they have been held accountable. How could it?
Please, Phil, show us why voting "hold[s] these politicians accountable". Would you be willing to consider that it might not be true after all?
Last edited by The Philosopher Princess on Sat Nov 05, 2005 10:44 pm; edited 1 time in total Thanks for your clarification, Herbz3. I think we needed that from you to understand your original statement.
I will add a clarification of my own: I do not advocate forced not voting.
So, you and I are in agreement at the top level, anyway.
| Phil wrote: |
| Oh, and Philosopher Princess, just what country are you referring to that is in shambles? |
Take your pick.
Or maybe you can show me a country where I am left alone to live my life as I desire, as long as I’m not hurting anyone else. It’s certainly not the USA. I’m not aware of others either.
I don’t want to be given anything. I want to live without forcible interference in my life.
My standard is freedom. The more interference, the less freedom, and the more "it" is in a shambles.While voting for the least of two evils (which I definately heard a lot about in at least the last two presidential elections) is validating a corrupt system, there is also a problem with not voting.
When you do not vote, in fact you are doing nothing about the system and you are giving up your right to influence the nation's leadership. A politician is not afraid of a nonvoter.
What tends to be forgotten, however is that it is not (at least in the presidency) a two person race-- if everyone would give up the idea that it is only a two party system, then more people would support independent candidates and the system would become more fair, and valid.
So, VOTE, but don't be afraid to pick an outside the normal box solution if you find yourself trying to decide between the two most popular but also most corrupt candidates.
Hi, bewald! Welcome!
I would like to see some logical evidence for your following 3 assertions. You don’t need to give full proof, just some support. | bewald wrote: |
| When you do not vote, in fact you are doing nothing about the system |
| bewald wrote: |
| you are giving up your right to influence the nation's leadership. |
| bewald wrote: |
| A politician is not afraid of a nonvoter. |
Why do you believe that voting is the only way to do something? This is very important for me to try to understand. Being someone who does tend to get really involved in politics, I do tend to not understand why people do not want to vote. Are people not voting in protest to the choices that they have or is it because they do not know the issues, or do they simply do not care.
I find that there is more apothy among people to actually get involved and care about the policies within a political party. I have never thought of running or anything like that but because I believe in certain issues and I will always help that party in an election that I feel reflects or comes close to what I believe in. The candidate/party that I volunteer for may not always win but at least I am out there "fighting/promoting" what I think is right.
I have also met people who have never been able to vote all their lives. I'll never forget when I was even in my first year of university and hanging out with the international students (I'm originally from Canada) and they were scared that they would not be able to go back to their home because they had voted in a Student Union election. They were baffled by the idea just how many things can be voted on, from real governments, to student government bodies, to just everyday issues/plebiscites such as smoking in public places.
You also have to remember that voting is a type of freedom. The right to choose/discuss and of course although I may not always agree but have the majority rule.
Someone helped us keep this freedom and actually went to war for it believing that our freedom was in jeprody. That alone makes me get out there and vote.
I couldn't imagine not being able to vote/choose/discuss our different views.
| The Philosopher Princess wrote: |
| Why [/b][/i]do you believe that voting is the only way to do something? This is very important for me to try to understand. |
Voting is just a recognised way to register your personal opinion on an issue. By casting a vote, however, you are implying a willingness to participate in a common process.
Interestingly, Russia has a "None of the above" option which allows protest votes to be tallied. This solves the problem of not voting and allows you to actively show that you do not prefer any of the offered candidates.Whether we are going to vote or not doesn't matter, cuz anyone who gets elected will become corrupted when he/she gets the power. Power is the temptation of EVIL!
| Quote: |
First of all, it’s not the only way to hold them accountable. Publicizing the shameful acts of politicians in the media can be extremely effective. Some even quit in disgrace. If each person who has faith in voting, instead used their influential ability to help publicize corrupt acts of a politicians, we could have many more quitting in disgrace. |
What shameful acts are you referring to? Do you mean to say just because someone is a politician, they are committing shameful acts? What if I feel they just don't represent me or my beliefs? How do I remove them from office then?
And as for shameful acts, publicizing hasn't done much good as far as Ted Kennedy, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Jesse Jackson or even the recent efforts to remove Bush.
| Quote: |
Grassroots campaigns using the internet, which can gain snowball momentum if people want, could do so much more than a few votes against someone.
|
You actually believe this? A few blogs and websites can do more than millions of voters who are deciding who will be making the laws?
Granted, I agree the internet can be an incredible source to pass on information, but any intelligent involved voter will question the validity of any pulication- especially those that are contrary to one's beliefs and opinions. Again I refer to the recent efforts of liberal websites to remove Bush.
And besides, what about the people who still DON"T have computers or access to the internet?b I would think this number is still pretty substantial. And, I'm sure there is a large number that still don't use the internet for information.
| Quote: |
Secondly, voting against politicians does not hold them accountable. Some of them lose -- so what!? They go onto other political races and/or use their new clout to influence special interests where they will gain.
|
You mean these politicians are voted out of office by their constituent, then voted right back in? I'm sure this has happened before, (indeed, here in the States, in my own home state, it has happened before) But again, give me an example.
| Quote: |
-Just because someone loses a race does not mean they have been held accountable. How could it?
-Please, Phil, show us why voting "hold[s] these politicians accountable". Would you be willing to consider that it might not be true after all?
|
I can't believe you asked this.
The voters have spoken their mind and said politician is no longer in office making decesions that effect you and me. | Quote: |
Phil wrote:
Oh, and Philosopher Princess, just what country are you referring to that is in shambles?
Take your pick. Smile
Or maybe you can show me a country where I am left alone to live my life as I desire, as long as I’m not hurting anyone else. It’s certainly not the USA. I’m not aware of others either. |
Shambles? That's a strong statement.
I have several friends that work overseas. The stories they tell are just incredible. Dead bodies will stay on street corners for days because people are afraid to get involved because of the corruption of law officials. Large payoffs are required just to walk the streets, twice the compound has been overrun and locals employed there massacred.
This is a country in shambles. This is a country where there is no power to vote. The same corrupt people remain in power with no system to challenge them.
If I get you right, any country with any form of government is evil?
Is this what you're saying?In the UK anyone can form a party, this is great unlike a two party system all you have to do if you don't agree with any of the MPs in your area is become an MP of a party you DO agree with or create your own party.
If you are in the US then you need to actively protest.
I think voting is imperative for citizens in a democratic government. however, with voting comes the responsibility of learning about the different issues and candidates being voted for.
I hate to be redundent here but I can't say this enough:
VOTE
VOTE
VOTE
VOTE
VOTE
I don't care if your vote counts or not. Just the act of voting will encourage you to become a more active, involved and responsible member of society.
| 52tease wrote: |
I hate to be redundent here but I can't say this enough:
VOTE
VOTE
VOTE
VOTE
VOTE
Just the act of voting will encourage you to become a more active, involved and responsible member of society. |
It does the opposite. It encourages one to get the false impression that they have been an “active, involved and responsible member of society”. Voting often makes people feel like they’ve done something. In reality, getting something done takes much more and much different.
Amazingly, 52tease, you help me make my point with your acknowledgement of the following. | 52tease wrote: |
| I don't care if your vote counts or not. |
Here in America we were given the honor TO VOTE and we MUST use it to our advantage. So if you don't you pretty much saying who cares who becomes our President or Mayor or whatever it may. Don't come crying to us when your taxes are up or you don't like the Pres or Mayor's decisions; your voted counts and use it.
SO VOTE!!!
USA ALL THE WAY
Thanks, tribe, for leading me to sharing another observation, not directed at you, personally.
Logically, something cannot be both an honor and a right.
Logically, something cannot be both a privilege and a duty.
And yet these 4 descriptions are very often used to simultaneously describe the act of voting.
What are we left to understand of the people who say these things? One thing is that they are not being logical on the subject of voting.
What do we do when we discover such significant illogics? One thing is we must be seriously skeptical of anything else these people say on the same subject. This, of course, is only if we are to be logical, ourselves.
it's nearly than in germany. here we have 2 big political parties; what they do is "fight" each other, what they should do is care about out social future. damn 
to the philosopher princess:
you are one of those people who don't vote and then complain about the person everybody else voted for, aren't you?
If you live in America, and you are not a white male, then not voting is betraying those who dedicated their lives to give you that right.
Not voting makes their lives useless.
Plato once said if you do not take part in politics, you will end up being ruled by your inferiors.
| The Philosopher Princess wrote: |
I would like to see some logical evidence for your following 3 assertions. You don’t need to give full proof, just some support....Why [/color]do you believe that voting is the only way to do something? This is very important for me to try to understand. |
Hi back
First, I think I was a little ambiguous with my wording. I do not believe that voting is the only way to get something done, but when it comes to influencing politics of our current system without actually becoming a politician or activist, I believe you must vote.
Well, one of the first thing we learned in my American Polical Systems class (which, I'm not saying is always right, but I do believe this) is that, based on our current system and some wonderfully colorcoded research in the textbook that the number one concern of politicians--including president, congress, elected officials (who are eligible for re-election) are concerned about is re-election.
Their best interest is to stay in office as long as possible, and "earning" or "influencing" the most votes is what keeps them there. When I say a politician is not afraid of a non-voter is that keeping in mind re-election is in his or her best interest, the interest groups that are considered in campaigns and when deciding policy are the interest groups who vote.
However, I do agree with you nonvoting as a form of expression, and I do agree that it makes a statement. The problem, in my opinion, is that this method of expression in the current system does not actually make an impact on the corrupt political system, because those who are corrupt or just inequipped to be in office just care that you vote for them over their competition. Completely seperate, some politicians do try to harvest the nonvoters (i.e. the Rock The Vote campaigns, campaigning in a way that appeals to minority groups, etc) but this is still the choice between "two evils".
I'm not sure if I was very clear or cohesive, I am writing on the fly, and sorry its so long!
Thanks for the wonderful discussion and brain food! | SunburnedCactus wrote: |
| Interestingly, Russia has a "None of the above" option which allows protest votes to be tallied. This solves the problem of not voting and allows you to actively show that you do not prefer any of the offered candidates. |
I think that quote messed up a little bit, I don't think it was the Philosopher Princess who wrote that actual quote, but WHEN CAN WE GET NONE OF THE ABOVE ON THE BALLOT IN THE US? I love the idea.
And finally, last post I promise I do think it is reasonable to exhibit freedom of speech through nonvoting, I just think that there are other ways to give the same message which have a greater impact, such as the numerous anti-war parades and protests around the White House, visible political activism, letters, etc..Howdy, bewald! I’m looking forward to having some more time for Frihost Fun Frolics, including responding to your thoughtful new text. But in the mean time, you’re right that the quote got messed up -- so let’s get that fixed up, shall we? [Added to post, later: this was carried out promptly. Thanks!]
You’re new and may not yet realize that you can edit your previous post. As interesting as the "Russia" quote is, we need to get that attributed properly to SunburnedCactus, not myself. When you edit, you should see some "code" inside the text that says [quote=" then The Philosopher Princess then "]. You can, by hand, change "The Philosopher Princess" to "SunburnedCactus". Do a Preview to test before you Submit. (Maybe there are some Frihosters more experience than I, who know a better way.)
Last edited by The Philosopher Princess on Wed Nov 16, 2005 3:40 am; edited 1 time in total | The Philosopher Princess wrote: |
| so let’s get that fixed up, shall we? |
Taken care of
Now ontopic.
I would like to remember what happened during my Chemistry exam when I was in 10th standard in school.
Apparently, one of the questions involved having to choose between few options - none of which were correct.
There were nationwide protests (10th standard is nationwide exam here) and later full marks for that particular question were awarded to each student.
If only an option "none of the above" was present, the question would have been valid and one would be able to judge a student's performance based upon the marks that he received.
Elections are meant for a person to chose what he/she likes, not what they'd rather settle for.
I like the idea of voting "none of the above" more than not voting or voting for the lesser evil.
There's also this idea that any elected candidate must have more than atleast 50% of the total electorate suporting him/her, and not just more than 50% of those who voted ?
I just don't really know what happens if "none of the above" happens to make it ? Hello all. This is my first post here so please be kind. IMHO, voting is only a part of the process that lazy americans need to do to make a difference. Does everyone here know how the election process works? You have to remember that your votes are tallied only for your area, so if you can get enough people in your area to agree with your opinion, you can make a difference in the electoral vote. If you feel that the "rich" have all the benefits, you are correct. Money talks and we can see it in many ways. But the age of technology can be used to force a revolution to make things better. The country should band together to boycott companies that contribute (pay) policitians to bend/make laws to meet their greedy needs. How many millions do all these CEO's need? But it takes hard work to organize people that are working hard day after day just trying to make ends meet. We don't have the time to attend $1,000/head balls and dinners to spread our opinions. So not voting is not the answer. It only adds to the helplessness.
This is also my first post. i say the following: If people think that voting is helping themselves and their country then they should vote. If a voter wants to vote for someone they like, then they should vote. If you don't want to vote and are too lazy to vote then don't vote. If you want other people to decided what your life should be then don't vote.
If you vote, there is no harm to you. If you don't then you are stuck with other people's decisions made to ruin your life.
I would vote.
Last edited by JLC on Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:09 am; edited 1 time in total
I regularly encourage liberalists not to vote. The less of them voting the better chance the US has to recover from the ravages of selfishness.
| souptonuts wrote: |
| How many millions do all these CEO's need? |
| not two words later souptonuts wrote: |
| But it takes hard work to organize people that are working |
Please explain the disparity between your two posistions.
.
.
.
.
hmmmm
Last edited by gonzo on Thu Nov 10, 2005 1:06 am; edited 1 time in total everyone should always vote... anybody's opinion is very important and we gotta express ourselves everyday... because maybe one day we will not be able to do that anymore ! d.
| Quote: |
| Bewald wrote: A politician is not afraid of a non-voter. |
This is exactly what made my point before. By voting, you show that you care about what happens in your country. By not voting, you show that you either don't like the politics of your country or you dont want to represent your country. In either case you are sending a clear and distinct message about what you think about voting.
It is not the act of voting that counts, but merely what it represents as an action or idea.I find the American Legal System to be most facinating.
It was born in response to Kings and Tyranny. We (The US) are the first formal country to not have a king. In the same breath I consider the American Lawyer to be the most disgusting creatures on earth as they have distorted the legal process almost beyond recognition.
The vote is your connection to selecting your lawmakers. They then make the laws that you live by.
Its interesting to me that you can vote for whoever you want-secret ballot-so your vote can be guided by pure prejudice, so voting, in a sense is outside of the bounds of law. Then, once the lawmakers make a law then you have the complete absense of prejudice when it comes to complying with that law.
The democratic system was born of pure genius and what the American Lawyer has done to that system is a disgrace to people who want Freedom all over the world. Ey!
There is little choice there
That´s what wikipedia says about voting:
Voting is a method of decision making wherein a group such as a meeting or an electorate attempts to gauge its opinion—usually as a final step following discussions or debates. Alternatives to voting include consensus decision making (which works to avoid polarization and the marginalization of dissent) and betting (as in an anticipatory democracy).
Voting is the base of democracy as we understand it today...
BCF
Of course I think voting is quite important. What would happen if no one would vote anymore??? Who would be elected or what desicions would the country make. I encourage everyone to vote!!!
I know it's been mentioned, but in Belgium, you are required to show up to a voting bureau on election days, so basically, if you don't want to pronounce yourself, you can always not vote and give a blank paper.
I do have to say that i'm really anoyed to see that poeple prefer to stay home and watch tv rather that take part in the futur of your country or government. In the 2000 elections in France, Jean-Marie Le Pen (a extreme right party leader) was elected to the second round of the elections mainly because normal electors (ie center, left and right) didn't bother to go vote. These kind of problems will continue to show up.
I think there are two problems:
1) Young poeple don't give a damm about elections (they think that there all the same). As long as they have access to discos, entertainment and so on, and i guess they think that policies don't reguard them until it pisses them off.
2) Agendas of political parties are looking very much alike these days, mostly to try and steal votes from other parties. This makes it more and more clear that politicians will do the same work even if they are from different parties... So why vote ?
My 2 cents
The cost of a democracy is voting. Voting should be viewed as an OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT FREEDOM. (Sorry about the all caps.)
Not voting because you don't care strongly about the issues is letting the extremists select your government for you.
Voting legitimizes citizenship in a country with an elected government
| The Philosopher Princess wrote: |
Your experience helps make my point beautifully. Pro-government people in Australia got so scared of what would happen if people didn’t vote, that they banded together to use the power of government to force people to vote. That is mob rule.
Talk about lack of freedom of speech! A grown, sane, intelligent adult can’t even make his/her own choice to vote or not vote. This is the opposite of freedom.
You guys think that’s just Australia -- it can’t happen in the USA? Think again. Some people would love to force voting.
Why do they need to force voting? Because the act of voting, itself, gives them the legitimacy they need to continue force in other areas. |
Oh...it does?
Funnily enough, the current Howard government is toying with the idea of changing the electoral system, including voluntary voting, amongst other things. Basically, he's using the dictatorship he's got in both upper and lower houses to change things his way. F***in' garden gnome.
Of course, to change something in the Australian constituion, you require a referendum. And not many referendums here actually succeed. Last time we had a referendum (should Australia become a republic?, that was the question), it failed. I've got an inkling it will fail on its arse.
I'd make local council elections voulnatary, let's face it, they're pointless most of the time.
| Bondings wrote: |
I don't know about Australia, but in Belgium we are forced to show up for elections, but not to vote. |
Well, some areas in Australia send you a birthday card and a voter registeration card when you turn 17!
Most people who don't have an opinion usually do a donkey vote, and close their eyes and mark which ever one is closest to the pencil. 
This is definetly the way in local council elections, not so much in state and federal elections.I believe that voting is not essentially a bad thing; however, I have never seen a candidate I really see eye to eye with. Perhaps there should be a wider range of choices, or maybe candidates should not be known to the voter, both should be elected by congress, and the voter will vote issue per issue.
it is a way to choose our leaders
in our country voting is making citizen responsible to his country
voting helps the country to have good leaders
voting gives your country a chance to grow
Free country needs a good leader and through voting we can select our leaders to lead us
In Philippines money politics is employed by our political leaders and a massive vote buy is employed by them. And through responsible voting we can check this traditional way
voting is a mode in selecting a leader in our country. If he has the money he can buy votes and win in
Could have easily put all of the above in a single post... 
Stating claims for not voting isn't easy. It requires to go deep inside and ask yourself questions about the reality of life, in regards to politics, geography and law.
Who exactly are we voting for? Do we know who we're voting for? Do we beleive we actually know these people who pose themselves as messiahs? I don't.
Most parties look and sound alike. Many politicians defy are the very basic rules of conduct we take for granted in our lives. So, really, why should we trust those bastards?
If you don't find someone worth voting for, don't vote for anyone.
If you find someone whose more worth voting for than someone else, vote for them, but don't expect things to get better.
I think that we all ahould have the freedom of voting, voting is the right and freedom that we all have as americans and should never be taken away from us | SunburnedCactus wrote: |
| Could have easily put all of the above in a single post... |
Merged his posts into one post.
@Bobot Caracas, please do not make double posts. try to cover as many points as you one in 1 post itself.Ive never voted in my life and I'm 32, the choice to not vote to me is part of
democracy, something that is being eroded over time by both the major
parties it seems. Though to be honest i find it difficult to get enthisastic about politics in general unless it directly affects me, and yes I know politics comes into every day life as the annoying vote labour advert at the last election pointed out, but politicians, the people doing this for a living are generally dull people who think they have loads of charisma, and are bigger than the subject they are talking about, that is just tedious and puts a lot of people off including me. But that isnt the reason I do not vote, if I was to vote I'd vote labour, labour that is not tony blair, it's trendy to blair bash at the moment but thats for pretty good reasons.
All i say is, the way i see it, you cant bitch about the govornment unless you did all in your power to stop them from getting power...which means voting for the opposition
even if you dont want to vote, i think voting for the lesser of two evils is far better than not voting at all...theres not enough people not voting to make a difference, and if noone voted....what would actually happen?
| fecundity wrote: |
| All i say is, the way i see it, you cant bitch about the govornment unless you did all in your power to stop them from getting power...which means voting for the opposition |
This is exactly the opposite of the point that is being made in this thread, that by not voting you are stopping them getting into power (see: THE WHOLE THREAD).yes, but my point is that unless NOONE votes, someone will get into power...and theres always gonna be people who vote, so isnt it worth using your vote to vote 'against' someone?
im open to persuasion on this still but surely if not voting wont stop them getting into power or change the system, voting tactically to make it hard for someone you really dont like to pass laws easily is the best way to do it...
POPULAR MYTHS (gathered for the most part from this Frihost thread) (listed in no particular order) (I’m ready to add more, so keep ‘em comin’! )
** Non-voters are apathetic.
** A person has no right to not vote and then complain about the person put into office.
** An act of voting helps the country (pick any).
** If more people voted, the country would be better off.
** Voting does more good than harm.
** The only way to hold politicians accountable for their actions is the voting ballot.
** When you do not vote, it means you are doing nothing about the system.
** When you do not vote, you are giving up your right to influence the nation's leadership.
** Politicians are not afraid of non-voters.
** Voting (even when only bad choices are being offered) implies freedom.
** When people vote, they are speaking their mind (in a non-negligible way).
** A person who votes has power.
** Voting is imperative for citizens in a democratic government (implying there are no other ways for citizens to have democratic influence).
** Even if your vote doesn’t count, voting will encourage you to be a more active, involved, and responsible member of society.
** Voting is both an honor and a right.
** Voting is both a privilege and a duty.
** Being able to vote (even in a corrupt system with few decent voting choices) is proof that your country is free.
** Not voting implies laziness.
** Non-voters are more stuck with other people's decisions than are the voters.
** People not voting when they have the chance are watching tv instead.
** Not voting implies you don’t care about the issues.
** It does more good to vote -- even when you don’t understand what you’re voting for -- than to not vote.
** Voting is a way to choose our leaders (rather than them choosing us).
** Voting helps the country to have good leaders.
** Taking a stance that voting does more harm than good (in today’s world) implies that one is advocating that voting should be taken away from us.
** When someone votes for a politician who then performs acts of anti-freedom against citizens, that voter should not feel responsible or accountable for said anti-freedom acts.
** People should have the responsibility to vote no matter what, but they should not feel any responsibility whatsoever when elected officials do harm to others.
~~~~~~~~~~
Additional Popular Myths #1:
** Not voting implies that you have no opinion about who should govern you.
** Since it only takes 10 minutes to vote, people who don’t vote probably also don’t brush their teeth.
** People who don’t vote are never purposely refusing to vote, and never because they have reasoned that it would do more harm than good to vote. (The only reasons they don’t vote are because they’re lazy, dumb, or don’t have teeth.)
** People have a civic responsibility to vote; therefore, people who don’t vote are irresponsible.
** Voting is the primary power the governed have in controlling those who govern them.
** When you are “in” a system where you do not like any of the voting choices, the only way to get “out” of that system is still by voting.
** Since we know that the responsible voter is well informed, we also know that the non-voter is irresponsible.
** Voting is never violent. Even when every choice offered in a particular election involves aggression against human beings (choice #1: we confiscate people’s earnings for a liberal program; choice #2: we confiscate people’s earnings for a conservative program), there is still no violence, ever, in voting.
~~~~~~~~~~
It’s fun believing things that are popular isn’t it? It takes more thinking and more overall work to come to believe things that aren’t so popular doesn’t it? Who needs that extra work!? Who doesn’t want to be in the group that’s popular?
Last edited by The Philosopher Princess on Thu Nov 24, 2005 4:54 am; edited 2 times in total Philosopher Princess, are you an anarchist?
hey damn id rether not vote then worst for the "best" outta the two.... no way to get things the way you want them is it?
Very nice points put up there.... Id have to say that i agree with most of them. Especially ones regarding the "you have to vote even if you dont know what your voting for".
I would say that if you dont know what you are voting for, then DONT VOTE. Your vote is only messing up someone elses vote who really cares about the issues in our world.
| Resident Egoist wrote: |
| Philosopher Princess, are you an anarchist? |
It depends on how you define that term. Very often people use anarchy to stand for chaos, which I’m not particularly for, but then again it depends on how it’s defined. There are people who call themselves anarchists these days who have no respect for personal property and that is definitely not me. I don’t want to be associated with them or any group that promotes initiation of force against people.
If your use of anarchy means anti-government, then again it depends because I am not against people voluntarily creating rules and governing themselves accordingly. At the point that the rules don’t fit one’s style, they need to be able to secede to join with other people where the rules fit. I am against people ganging up together to force rules onto other people against their will. And therefore I am against any government having a monopoly. That makes sense because I am against monopolies period. That is because monopolies are initiation of force. I am for Freedom, not Force.
To tie this discussion in with the current thread: I am not against all voting per se. I am against people using the ballot box to gang up together with others to force their personal preferences onto other people when it's none of their business.
It is no one else’s business whether a driver wears a seatbelt or not. It is no one else’s business whether someone burns a flag that they own. It is no one else’s business when a company won’t hire someone based on their race, religion, age, etc. It is no one else’s business when two people want to voluntarily trade products/services/money. But voters -- and the legislators and judges they vote for -- gang up together -- turn into a mob -- to force all kinds of business licenses -- many of which are very ridiculous -- against the will of the providers and the consumers. What they are doing is creating monopolies with these votes. They are no better than any mobster. And the voters are just as much monopolists as the politicians in these cases.
These days the publicized issues are simply between the Conservative methods of initiation of force and the Liberal methods of initiation of force. Both groups have their druthers on what kinds of things to force onto people. Both groups are trying to run other people’s lives.
I would like to let people know that they have an option of opting out of the initiation of force schemes, scams, and shams. If they take part, they should be asshamed.
If you call my philosophy anarchism, I have no problem, as long as my true philosophy is also coming across.
If voting ever becomes a system whereby people aren’t voting on how to run other people’s lives, then I will support voting. Until then, I won’t be a part of such initiation of force. I encourage others to be brave enough to break away from mob-rule. (I hope I wasn’t unclear . I appreciate the question.) | Herbz3 wrote: |
| Very nice points put up there.... Id have to say that i agree with most of them. |
Thanks. Since you agree that most of those are myths, I’d be most interested in the one (or more) that you most think is actually not a myth or of which you are most unsure. Your giving me this detail will be more valuable (for certain of my purposes) than someone who disagrees with most (but their details will be valuable for other purposes).
| Herbz3 wrote: |
| Especially ones regarding the "you have to vote even if you dont know what your voting for". I would say that if you dont know what you are voting for, then DONT VOTE. Your vote is only messing up someone elses vote who really cares about the issues in our world. |
I like your comment. My next wonderment is about the people who are in the bubble (as I like to say) -- the ones who don’t know that they don’t know what they’re voting for.
How often do negative ramifications of various votes come out after that fact? Oh, I thought I was helping my Little Timmy get a better education when I voted for that School Bond. I didn’t realize that Little Timmy and other cute little human critters who can’t yet vote are going to be the ones paying for that School Bond, with high interest, for decades to come!All I have to say is the story out of Dover KA, where the town voted out the city councel when they implemented the whole Intelehent Design thing, is proof that, in small towns, voting counts. Now when it's a big nation election, well.
[url=
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=4175]Too many voting irregularities to be coincidence[/url][/url] | The Philosopher Princess wrote: |
| I hope I wasn’t unclear I appreciate the question. |
To the contrary -- you were very clear. Thank you for such a thorough response.
Another question, if I may:
| Quote: |
| There are people who call themselves anarchists these days who have no respect for personal property ... |
At this point, I believe it to be wise that we agree on an objective definition of "anarchism". Here's one that I think you might wery well agree with:
Via Encarta.com:
| Quote: |
an-ar-chism:
doctrine rejecting government: an ideology that rejects the need for a system of government in society and proposes its abolition. |
As to "government", we shall define that as a social institution possessing an exclusive legal monopoly on the use of retaliatory physical force within a given geographical area.
Now, to my question: suppose that such a thing as an anarhist society(?) is possible, and suppose that you lived in one, how, without the existence of a government, would you defend and protect your rights against other anarchists who wish to violate them?i think evyone should deffinitelly vote, although voting should certainly be made a little more complrehensive to the general public. as of now, campains are mostly made to preffit and not to inform as thay should be. they are aimed to a elitist of very specific portion of the population, and never to the general public, especially minorities or lower class citizens who as not only poorly informed but manipulated because of their lack of information. speaking of citizenship, that alone is a scam, permanent residents should certainly be able to vote, at the least locally, they are as much concerned if not more by the laws and rulers and should be considered as important and active in this role as citizens. The law of voting only for citizens i am not afraid to say is fashist!
| Resident Egoist wrote: |
Now, to my question: suppose that such a thing as an anarhist society(?) is possible, and suppose that you lived in one, how, without the existence of a government, would you defend and protect your rights against other anarchists who wish to violate them? |
A breath of fresh air. thank you for your insight. Actions have consequences. Inaction has none. For better and for worse, being proactive is the most efficient way of changing things. NOT voting leaves everything to chance and ultimately chaos. NOT voting leaves the door open for governments whose existence does not require voting. Is that what we want?i dont feel theirs any point in voting these days... on the whole the individual has no power to change anthing...just become an addition to a mob. Or even when your vote does go to a winning candidate... whos to say that their promises are to be kept, and very rarely they are.
Who here would say that they honestly vote at each and every general and national election?
| illini319 wrote: |
| NOT voting leaves the door open for governments whose existence does not require voting. Is that what we want? |
Well, we wouldn't have this problem then, would we? | illini319 wrote: |
| NOT voting leaves the door open for governments whose existence does not require voting. Is that what we want? |
Not voting does not lead to a government whose existance does not require voting. It is what you do with you vote that decides what type of government you live in.
If you vote you are saying that you completely agree with the party that you vote for.
In reality, no one completely agrees with the part they vote for, which is why many people vote for parties for the wrong reason.
This is why I made my stand in my last post. Dont vote if you dont know what you are voting for. Also, dont vote if you are "voting against another party". This ultimately leads to government which does not represent its people, which is not what voting and government is about. Government is supposed to be a reflection of the ideals and priciples of the people who are underneath it, NOT the opposite of what we don't want our government to be. | illini319 wrote: |
| Actions have consequences. Inaction has none. |
Seriously?! So, as an example, if you stand in the middle of the highway in front of an incoming truck and refuse to move/act, does that not have consequences?
What if you decide to stay in bed every morning and refuse to go to work -- does that no have consequences? ... Hmm ... probably not nowadays. The Omni-Maximus Nanny State can just bail one out.
Anyway. I think this whole question of whether voting as such is good/responsible or not, is an entirely and severely marginal one. There are more important questions to be asked -- one of them being: If any, what area(s) of an individual's life should be subject to popular vote? Well ... more important to me, at least.I believe if the only two choices in which you can vote for are both terrible, don't bother voting at all. Unless you believe voting for the better of the two bads is a good idea. (I'm not sure if that makes any sense...)
About USA, why is it that a lot of Americans I've talked to have told me they do not like the current president even though the majority of the USA have voted for him?
| Herbz3 wrote: |
| Not voting does not lead to a government whose existance does not require voting. |
I did not say that it would lead to it... I said that it leaves the door open for this to occur. On a national level, if people lose faith in their government then the government is at its weakest. If people do not vote because they feel that the current government is not doing its job and that there are are no viable alternative candidates, then... the people are not doing their job. It's always shocking when, in a democratic society, people split 'them' from 'us'. It immediately saves yourself from blame, and conveniently gives you another group to shift the blame to. It is WE, people. If there are no alternatives to a better administration it is because 1)there are no other leaders among us or 2)we didn't pay attention and give support to the candidates who tried to distinguish themselves from the status quo. Everyone continues to complain about how our two party system has become so partisan that nothing useful ever gets done. And I agree (as does most people who have posted here). Did you all vote for Nader? If not Nader, did you vote for someone other than an elephant or donkey? (I don't care much for Nader... I just mean to set him as an example of someone who is not as cookie cutter as the repubs or the dems). If WE didn't vote (at a significant percentage) for someone OUTSIDE of our two party system... GUESS WHAT that's our fault! The solution to this conundrum is NOT to abstain from voting (what would that do but make you irrelevant). The solution is to support a party or person that you feel will best represent your interests (and if that means someone outside the status quo... then so be it).
AND I agree with you Herbz3, in principle. It becomes dangerous when people do not know what they are voting for. But again, the solution is not to abstain from voting, but to EDUCATE YOURSELF about the people and the policies. Then make a decision.
If one party says,"We think that slavery should be reinstated," WHY shouldn't people vote 'against' this party??? The alternative, surely, would be less horrific. A religious person against abortion must have the same reaction to candidates who are pro-choice. | Resident Egoist wrote: |
| illini319 wrote: | | Actions have consequences. Inaction has none. |
Seriously?! |
Yes, seriously. Nice try in attacking my logic...try again.
| Resident Egoist wrote: |
| So, as an example, if you stand in the middle of the highway in front of an incoming truck and refuse to move/act, does that not have consequences? |
You moved/acted to the middle of the highway in the first place. hence your suicidal consequence
| Resident Egoist wrote: |
| What if you decide to stay in bed every morning and refuse to go to work -- does that no have consequences? ... Hmm ... probably not nowadays. The Omni-Maximus Nanny State can just bail one out. |
Your 'action' is staying home. THAT clearly has consequences.
In terms of voting: NOT voting makes your voice unheard. NOT voting implies that you have no opinion about who should govern you (since there will always be those that vote-- regardless of their competence). You are now irrelevant. The fact that the current or new government exists, post voting, is NOT a consequence of yours. It is the consequence of those that voted.
As far as your last comment... yes, I agree with you this whole question of voting is marginal at best. Talk is absolutely cheap.i think that voting for what you want isnt alway the way it has to be. Even though you don't the party who is running for office, or even if you think he is smart or war crazy, he is still better then whatever else is out their.
i never really liked politicians i think they are all liars and good at evading the truth. They can shrug off any mishap like it is yesterdays new, totally oblivious to the severity of th esituation. i feel that they or self centered and egotistic and that they feel whatever they want is what is best for their nation. Wrong of course they usually are (polititions that is) but none the less left unchangeble and childish with their ways of running their country.
Wayne Grezty quoted "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take" but i feel that for polititians that they miss 100% of the shots they do take. | Resident Egoist wrote: |
| Philosopher Princess, are you an anarchist? |
In the long run it is opinion that makes government powerful
that is indeed true but if the government cares not for the opinions of the people of it country or in it self then they are doomed. Many opposition leaders listen to the opinions of the people to try and win their votes to gain office but soon after takign the throne ignore what they strongly pursaded us to believe they were going to do. So in turn it really isn;t the opinions that make a strong government but a strong minded government willing to respect the legit opinions of others that make it strong of powerfull.This is a very abstract discussion of voting in a world news discussion thread. Not that that is a problem per se, but I think it bears on the issue quite strongly (which is a very interesting issue by the way.)
Democracy is not someting easily defined outside of specific instances of democratic (or undemocratic) practice. It is a rather empty term that we bandy around to describe or legitimate a whole raft of social arrangements. If you say it is bad to vote, I reply, when, for whom, under what circumstances?
A case in point is the recent Sri Lankan Presidential Elections. The Tamil Minority in Sri Lanka refused to vote in the election leading to the election of a President far less sypathetic to their cause.
see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4447794.stm
Now you could argue (and I expect the Tamils both did and are arguing) that this avoids lending legitimacy to the election. I expect that this a seperatist argument form the Tamil side.
You could also argue that a unitary state is the most likely outcome, and that the Tamils have shot themselves in the foot by not voting. I would probably lean towards this second argument in this case, because I think that neither Sri Lanka, nor the local superpower, India, has any interest in seeing Tamil Seperatism succeed: India had its own problems with it's Southern States, Tamil Nadu, and calls for Tamil Seperatism there. But under different circumstances it might well make sense for the Tamils to go for autonomy, and thus to boycott an election.
The overall point being that the question this thread is addressing cannot really be answered ih the abstract universal. To attempt to do so is a philisophiocal dead end: An exercise in thought about thought with no object. Are we talking about voting in America only, in the UK, in Europe, in Asia, in general, when, why, under what circumstances, and with what sorts of outcomes in mind?
Daniel George Carlin has always summed it up best for me...
| Quote: |
| I don’t vote. Two reasons. First all it’s meaningless; this country was bought and sold a long time ago. Secondly, I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. 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 people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with. |
BTW, I live in the US, if that wasn't clear. Thanks for another great popular myth to add to my list: | illini319 wrote: |
| NOT voting implies that you have no opinion about who should govern you |
A corollary is that voting implies that you choose somebody to govern you, and that you accept responsibility for what they do whilst governing. Your opinion, expressed by your vote, has been cast, and when your chosen “governor” forces policies, rules, and regulations down people’s throats, your opinion has been converted into political force. Voting makes you responsible for the results.
Responsibly not voting implies that I choose to govern myself.
If you choose to be governed by others, then you are the one who has no right to complain about how they govern you. There’s a twist for you! HangoverMS, I love that quote of Carlin! I wish I’d read it before submitting my previous post. (Some of my points and word usage seem like copying though I’d not read it yet.)
So, now I’m caught up with reading this thread -- many interesting points of view ! So much fun stuff to talk about !
I will answer the latest to me from the welcomed addition to this thread, Resident Egoist. My initial reaction is that I would feel more comfortable if we would merge the definitions into one, well-stated definition of anarchism. (It really doesn’t matter, for our current purposes, where they came from originally.)
Another initial reaction (“seconditial” reaction ) is that I can’t quite answer you until the term rights (which you use) has been defined. (I have my own definitions of course, and can resort to those, but you are asking the question and so I care about your usage.)
So, if you have the time and inclination to add some refinement to these things, so much the better. Otherwise, when I get back to writing here, I will take a stab at the whole shebang. I think that the voting system in america has gone round the bend.
They say they are the worlds greatest democracy but in fact have one of the most flawed and biased voting systems ever, which can be over ridden by a few people in the supreme court.
The media and the church rule the voting system.
Freedom of voting shows how much a country free is. If you cant vote on the people manage you, the constitution, it means that you are not free, you are not a citizenship, you are not such a person that being listened. Bad? or Good?
You have to remember that your votes are tallied only for your area, so if you can get enough people in your area to agree with your opinion, you can make a difference in the electoral vote. If you feel that the "rich" have all the benefits, you are correct. Money talks and we can see it in many ways. But the age of technology can be used to force a revolution to make things better. The country should band together to boycott companies that contribute (pay) policitians to bend/make laws to meet their greedy needs. How many millions do all these CEO's need? But it takes hard work to organize people that are working hard day after day just trying to make ends meet
Dear all
I live in a country where voting was condemned for more than 35 years. I never believed in voting as for every vote that we should make, we were forced to take a direction. We had a war about 2.5 years ago to rid us from our goverment. Afterwards, I had many oppertunities to vote which I was reluctant at first then I made my first step to vote for the constitution. Believe me, I think I made a change in the decision which I voted for. After voting I felt that I am really expressing myself for the matter that I really believe in and I was happy.
Wonderful, we get a post form someone in Iraq about their voting for the constitution. So do we ignore them and carry on an abstract discussion over their heads, or do we ask them what the US invasion has meant for him in practice, to tell us more about how he feels about his new democratic rights, if he feels it will make a difference, what he believes substantive freedoms in his country would look like.
Untill we start asking such questions the notion of democracy is empty and meaningless. Freedom is about what people actually feel they can do. If you are formally free but in practice have to work 60 hour weeks, what has that got to do with democracy? If you are formally free but in danger of getting blown up or shot every day, is this a real improvement in your life? Perhaps it is, but if you don't ask these questions that relate to people's lived lives, than any discussion of democracy is largely meaningless.
Daniel
Dear Dante and all
Thank you for noting the situation in Iraq. We are begining to think that nobody is noting what is happening here. I will mention some facts keeping the matter strict to the voting principle.
First of all, I was never related and never will be related to any political group in Iraq, so my opinion represent myself only.
Second, before the war, there were incidents for voting to re-elect the president. Everybody eligible had to vote or his name (unticked for not voting) will be questioned. AND the vote had to be YES. I never knew the meaning of voting or what it means. Always the results of voting were 99.9% with YES.
Third, after the war, our first voting experience was to elect the first parliament. In some areas in Iraq (my house was in one) we were told that for everybody who is seen near the voting area will be assassinated or his house will be blown within three days. Everybody who votes will be marked with some sort of ink to his right index finger so as not to vote twice and some voted citizens were stopped by some (??) and their index fingers were cut if it was inked (they VOTED). So still, I never knew what voting is all about.
Fourth, then came the instance of voting for the constitution, nobody threatened us but we were adviced by some people to vote for NO to the constitution.
I thought that it was time to say NO. So I went and voted according to my own opinion. It does not matter whether it was yes or no. The only thing that mattered was to state MY opinion. To express myself.
So after all, voting may, for people who knew democracy be useless, but for us, it meant a lot.
Regards to all
| The Philosopher Princess wrote: |
| I can’t quite answer you until the term rights (which you use) has been defined. |
But of course you can! In fact, the lack of a definition of the concepts of "rights" is excellent for this discussion, as it serves to illustrutate exactly the point I wish to make. At worst, it is irrelevant to it.
Anyway, I will rephrase my former question: suppose that such a thing as an anarchist society can exist, and suppose that you lived in one, how, without the existence of a government, would you protect your rights -- whatever you think they are -- against other anarchists who wish to violate them?Even if you barely care, it only takes 10 minutes. I wonder if people who don't vote also don't brush their teeth as often.
| The Philosopher Princess wrote: |
Amazingly, 52tease, you help me make my point with your acknowledgement of the following. | 52tease wrote: | | I don't care if your vote counts or not. |
|
as far as I can tell you don't even have a point.
You're trying to stir up contraversy about how worthless a system with voting is because you think it makes people more docile, but at the same time you express EXTREME anti-government ideals. the only thing worse than bad government is no government. there is no system in which you can be left alone to do as you please, because in that system everyone can do as they please. there are no rules. in that system you have already been murdered or enslaved by someone who had no reason not to. Either way you can no longer do as you please. freedom requires some degree of common sense. without someone to enforce the rules that you want to live under, there WILL be someone to force you to live under ones that you don't. Maybe the group YOU live under doesn't allow slavery, but they also don't allow enforcing of rules. The other group three miles down has no problem with enslaving your group to do it's manual labor.
the article you quote doesn't even stay on topic. it's trying to prove that voting is evil because it is done as an act of aggression, but then it goes on to make points about people sticking to their parties. Party loyalty is pretty much the opposite of aggression, it's apathy, passive loyalty. The whole thing looks like the kind of stuff I wrote in Highschool. It never really gets the point accross, but it gives the feeling that it has by the time you've finished.