lol
^^ Even though I consider this a perfectly apt addition to the conversation, BBS needs a minimum of 6 characters. Because of course 6 is the magic number in which a contribution becomes worthwhile. I could have just added some needless punctuation, but I thought I’d soapbox instead.
Bad idea. As it is, only about 30% of registered voters ever bother showing up to the polls in presidential election years. It’s worse in years when only congresscritters are up for re-election. If more people got off their duffs and voted, we might have the congress we deserve instead of the one a minority of us decided we’d get.
If not for the heavy preselection of scoundrels, I would agree with you. But if you have no one to believe in, there’s no point in participating.
Volatility should be handled with caution. It doesn’t help individual candidates or people who are counting on them, but it does make it easier for the over-all window of political discouse to shift, since more randomness allows more radical candidates to get in as often. And certainly we should want an appropriate shift.
But if you think about how this works out, it leaves the shift entirely determined by the ones who select candidates in the first place. Not voting or treating all candidates as equivalent gives them even less worry about keeping things palatable to the general electorate, so really, such volatility is a benefit to them. Make sure they’re on your side before you push for it.
As IronEdithKidd says, America already has low voter turnout, and it’s not hard to tell who is pushing for it and who gains from it. It’s gone with a slide far toward the interests of wealthy campaign donors, who with little interested electorate are all but the only ones that determine whether someone might be elected.
I am glad we are finally getting more people to the meat of the conversation. This kind of discussion is GREAT.
I advocate not voting and increasing volatility not as a way of benefitting the minority, but as a way of inciting the majority to THINK, and for the minority to sit uneasily closer to the edges of their boardroom chairs.
Among the 30% of voters who turn out, how many do you think actually think about their candidates? How many actually make an informed choice to vote D or R, or do they show up at the precinct simply because that’s what they always do? And yet they’ll claim that since they voted, “the voice of the people” was heard. And they say that if you don’t vote, you get what you deserve, you’re not a true citizen, a freeloader, etc.
Hogwash.
Elections are generally rigged. While the vote tallying is usually fair, with a few notable exceptions, the election itself is corrupt. All because of the pre-selection process.
At the carnival, when you try to stand up the milk bottle with the ring on a string, the game was rigged before you, the sucker, ever walked up and handed the carny your money. That’s US elections.
Victors claim: fair and beautiful, I love this system!
Losers: we better get out the vote next time!
Losers of razor-thin elections: I demand a recount!
Ties and inconclusive counts: I want the Supreme Court to decide!
But it’s still the milk bottle game. The center of gravity is off. The election was rigged in the first place for scoundrels. Ask yourself how many stand-up people are in Congress and state governments?
How can you willingly participate in such a system?
To make any difference at all, we need to put our energy into dismantling and un-rigging the pre-selection system. Until then, elections are pointless.
Until we fix primaries and the exclusive two-party club, we are all just huffing at the wind, demonizing each other about a pointless vote. VOTING DOESN’T MATTER. You are fooling yourself if you think that voting is the only way to have an effect.
Take Fix, err, I mean Fox News. Predicated on disseminating lies and echo-chambering absolute distortions, they have had more influence on US elections than any other organization in history. Does Fox News “vote”?
If there’s a candidate worthy of your vote, then certainly vote. Don’t not vote simply because of not voting. But never, NEVER vote for a lesser of two evils. Only ever vote for someone whom you absolutely believe in and trust to represent you. Don’t vote for some candidate that is 99% the way there on your issues, but ohhhhh, he’s anti-abortion… maybe I can overlook that because he’s such a great guy. NNNNNNNNOPE. You just voted for a scoundrel.
Vote, but only when your vote actually counts for something. Which, as I said in previous posts, is going to mostly be local issues.
Voting does still influence a number of things, some of which have real impact on many people. I certainly haven’t said it is the only way to have an effect, or that it has nearly enough effect.
What I’ve said is as fewer and fewer people vote, it’s only played further to the interests of those who can afford to do the pre-selection. Voting for the least evil is not much restraint on them, sure, but giving them full control is even less.
I hear you, and it’s all perfectly logical. But I see the vanishing point as already long behind us. So, while it may or may not be true that “as fewer and fewer people vote, it’s only played further to the interests of those who can afford to do the pre-selection,” what I am saying is that it doesn’t matter either way. That’s because (imho) long ago, the game was rigged not in our favor. So, no matter what we do: vote or not vote in big elections, the endgame was predetermined. Just like a carny game. I refuse to participate in this collective fantasy.
If we changed the fantasy, then I would say that voting could matter again. But, right now, in this reality, voting does not matter.
That’s only true if you ignore everything mentioned in the two links I gave. I agree most significant change would depend on things beyond voting in the big elections, but in the mean time it still demonstrably impacts things like unemployment, deficits, rights for people from gays and workers, involvement in wars, and so on. Not everyone has the luxury to pretend those things don’t matter either way.
Not ignore - interpret correctly. By your logic, in voting for Obama, we have effectively traded our individual liberties, the right to privacy and freedom from intrusion by the NSA, for gay marriage and more jobs. If voting were of paramount importance in determining these outcomes.
But voting is NOT the primary determinant. Voting is but one part, and, as I’ve argued consistently, but one small, and at this point in history, inconsequential part.
Those social ideas that have come to fruition are not the direct result of voting. They are ideas whose time has come.
Think about the retrograde motion we, as a nation, have experienced in civil rights: are we not seeing new incarnations of racism and police brutality daily? That is because voting has not solved the issue. And more voting is not going to touch it. The social issue must come to a head, and THEN the problem will be dealt with. At that point, the voting will be an afterthought.
I don’t see voting as a cause. I see voting as an effect.
I’ll vote for people I disagree with. I like a lot of people I disagree with. Sometimes I’m wrong and they help me see that.
I’m less interested in having a candidate that aligns on every specific issue and more interested in a person who will work in the best interest of the state/nation/people they represent. I want someone I can trust to behave ethically and do good work on my behalf.
I don’t think there is much to suggest voting impacts the first three; they have gotten worse under Obama, but there hasn’t been much indication anyone else planned to be better. So I will agree that voting is not the primary determinant there.
On the other hand, voting was almost certainly key for jobs since there has been a consistent difference between parties. Gay rights are somewhere between: the bend of history has been toward them, but that has happened faster or slower under different people, and I’m not so disinterested to what happens to people today as to count that as nothing.
So I don’t see any trade here at all; there were many things that are beyond voting’s reach as you describe, and a few important things that it did determine or at least influence. You have been given good justification that the latter are real; consider how easy it was to predict how things would go with Bush, and if you are happy not to also be in a predicted war with Iran, know voting matters a bit.
And really it might matter more than is evident, because when you say voting hasn’t fixed something, you mean a minority voting with volatile outcomes that give more power to pre-selectors. America has essentially already tried not voting on a fairly large scale, and it is plain who that favors and who wants more of it.
To sum up: voting isn’t what we need to fix many of the problems you mention, but there is good evidence that it does still influence people’s well-being in some ways. We need to do other things, but I can’t see any advantage in giving the people who benefit from low voter turnout what they want.
It’s a valid point. What I’m suggesting is that tradeoffs between basic liberties is an untenable compromise, when selecting a candidate to vote for. A tradeoff such as disagreeing with a candidate about withdrawing from Afghanistan NOW, vs. a gradual drawdown… That’s an acceptable disagreement to have, and one that presents itself in a resolvable space.
But to horse trade one’s basic rights… that’s simply not an acceptable value proposition. And I am saying that most of the time we are faced with these stark choices, should we choose to participate in the Democratic vs. Republican psychodrama every 4 years.
From Chenille:
And really it might matter more than is evident, because when you say voting hasn’t fixed something, you mean a minority voting with volatile outcomes that give more power to pre-selectors. America has essentially already tried not voting on a fairly large scale, and it is plain who that favors and who wants more of it.
This is a good paragraph, because there aren’t simply two alternatives. It’s not black and white, vote or don’t vote. It’s a lot grayer, and I’m sorry if I have not made this starkly clear in all my posts so far. The point isn’t to just not vote. The point is to not vote, but with a conscience. Huge difference.
What America HASN’T tried is 1. a viable third party. 2. a third, fourth and fifth party. 3. mass-scale non-voting coupled with mass-scale social activism. 4. a return of national supremacy to the local level, 5. voting on a weekend or for a whole week, so that more people can vote, 6. voting on the Internet or exclusively by mail, etc. etc. etc. There are too many alternatives to count. We haven’t tried any of these things. We haven’t done anything to enhance the power of voting.
Instead, we’ve allowed a tiny, rich minority to systematically hijack our country and rig our elections continually in favor of the already powerful.
More voting will change this?
No, I don’t think simply voting more will change this, any more than you think simply voting less will change this. If you think I have anywhere implied as much, then I will have to stop talking for today, because apparently I am not managing to properly communicate anything on the subject.
I must respectfully disagree here. You are essentially correct that the vast majority of folks are only looking to find confirmation of what they already believe, so they can search for further justification for voting whichever they were already going to.
But what I’m saying is that for purposes of ruining politicians one would use information that would upset those who are already inclined to vote for that part. For a Republican you find something ANT-GOD, or PRO-GUN CONTROL, something HOMOPHOBIC would be used to attack a liberal. See what I’m saying?
Not even that. People do not admit errors easily. Look at Toronto and its mayor who copped to smoking crack. His base stands by him even when they are the anti-crack type.
Or Bill Clinton whose behaviour in the White House should have sent feminists into conniptions, but it had the opposite effect. If people stick with a bad spouse who is wrong for them, what’s a politician?
You should be right in theory, but life is more like the last lines in the movie Some Like It Hot. No truer words have ever been spoken!
Well, I think we’re doing pretty well today. Nobody called anybody stupid and we managed to stay above board. I certainly do not think you or your views are stupid, and I appreciate all the honest plain dealers on this thread. I’m going to hang it up too and let others have a go. Cheers!
Knowledge is power. The NSA has all the power in this country now, the last scraps of Democracy are gone.
Yes! Really nice to have an actual discussion for once. You guys make some excellent (and valid) points about how corrupt and useless the voting process has become. I think what bugs me the most isn’t that heavily-financed jerks are typically all we’re left to choose from, but that they actively cut any third-party alternatives out of the process - by refusing debates, for example. The people will not vote for candidates they can’t get any real sense of, and no platform they can identify. And then, on those rare occasions when someone promising turns up, they usually end up caving and falling in with one of the corrupt major parties, just to get elected at all. (Mind you, I don’t respect that choice in the least - but I understand it.)
Despite everything going on, I can only see that one use for the vote. Fire them, across the board. I see it as literally the only way we can have a strong effect and send the message that this nasty process and everything it produces is unacceptable. That’s it. Fire them, and let them squirm as they understand that we will have some say.
Oh, how I wish for that hero! I would love to see that person appear and succeed. A time-traveling Madison. Or a Trueman. But it’s a wish - not the reality. And that business of wishing for a hero to come along and make it all better somehow is really a victim’s game - not a path for anyone who holds principles above politics and takes responsibility for their own part in things. I still wish (boy, do I!) but I refuse to allow myself that cop-out. And that’s hard. Because, I want to throw my hands up and say screw it. It’s done. But…I just can’t quite do that, unless I know I went down kicking and screaming the whole way. This is our place, and you are my people, and we deserve much, much better, dammit!
No. They know they have enough dirt on everyone to keep their bosses in line. Y’know like Hoover did to everyone.
See also, Chris Christie suddenly discredited over leaked tweets and e-mails.
