I didn't vote for 'em

I’m not so much about shunning it is throwing every tool on the table and seeing how best to game the system.

I guess the problem is that you may end up with a table overflowing with tools, but none of which ever gets used while you try to sort through them all.

Meanwhile, the rickety table you were going to fix collapses under the time and weight of all those tools you never used.

Sometimes it’s better to work with the imperfect tools you have than search for the impossibly perfect tool you’ll never have.

Let’s at least get this table stable before we dance on it. :dancer:

And what if another approach is more stable than the current system? Isn’t it better to give it a chance?

I’m not sure ‘might be a little hard’ is a viable reason not to give other things a chance, are you?

Why not design something based on what we know now, rather than what we knew then?

3 Likes

You seem to be misunderstanding my proposal. It is pretty simple. If someone is going to do nothing other than vote and do some light slacktivism, the best thing they can do is push on the base when possible. The best way to do this, if you are going to do nothing more than vote, is vote for a third party when your vote won’t otherwise count. The reality is that voting and slacktivism is what 90% of the base does. Clearly, it is great if they do more than that, but if that is all they are going to do, they should do it so it has the greatest effect.

Again, I didn’t advocate people in Florida voting for a third party. Their vote counts. A Massachusetts resident on the other hand has a vote that otherwise doesn’t count. If your third party voting is resulting in Republicans winning, you are doing it wrong and not doing what I am advocating.

No, I didn’t miss it. I read the entire thing and the length wasn’t the problem. The problem was that it was a very long response to position I never took and that you never actually directly addressed the position I advocated once. You advocated against letting the other side win through apathy. Cool, I didn’t advocate that. You pointed out that we would be better off if Democrats won. I don’t disagree and never argued otherwise. You argued that the right has a bunch of advantages. Great, but didn’t make a point about that either. You argued that the best way to influence the system is active engagement. Fan-fuckin’-tastic son, but that is also another point I don’t disagree and never argued against.

Once again, are you unable to understand that I am not advocating for people in battleground states to vote for third parties? Do you not understand that if a state is a winner takes all state, and the state is solidly blue, that voting for a third party does not influence the results of the election, but it can scare the shit out of the party if the numbers start to climb too high? I see the pretty chart that shows that Democrats are better than Republicans, and you appear to utterly fail to understand that I agree. Let me make this as clear as possible, I advocate voting for third party ONLY IF YOUR VOTE DOESN’T COUNT.

Obama is on his second term. He can’t be voted out. He has used his executive power poorly. Republicans can’t filibuster the rescheduling of drugs or force him to have more raids than Bush. Republicans didn’t filibuster his efforts to fight to keep contraceptives from teens because they couldn’t, and, um, they agreed with him. Republicans can’t filibuster a directive to not conduct mass domestic spying. Republicans had nothing to do with his worse than Bush transparency and fighting of FOIAs. Republicans are not filibustering Obama’s headlong charge into another fucking war in the Middle East because they are enthusiastic to join him. Republicans certainly get the blame for a number of unimplemented policies, the budgeting mess, and more, but Obama was a shit show without their help. Better than Romney? Sure, but you can still be pissed.

So one more time, this is my proposal.

IF you live in a state where your vote doesn’t count state,
AND you are unhappy with the direction of the party,
AND you are not going to be engaged in the process beyond voting and slacktivism:
THEN AND ONLY THEN you should vote for a third party.
BECAUSE This will do more to influence the party than giving them your rubberstamp vote that is not needed and will do absolutely nothing to influence the election.

The Democrats care absolutely nothing for the lefty feels of a state like Massachusetts and make literally no effort to appease them in a presidential contest. This is why they have room to move right. They feel that so long as they are left of Republicans those votes are in the bag. A 42%, 38%, 20%, result from a solid blue state like Massachusetts would scare the shit out of party establishment, and you can bet your ass that they would inch left. Even a 52%, 38%, 10%, would have scared them and not put the election in any danger. In a two party system, there is literally nothing more terrifying than your base threatening to leave you. Democrats should use the threat or not be shocked when the party takes for granted, runs to the right, and gives us people like Obama.

3 Likes

In a two party system, there is literally nothing more terrifying than your base threatening to leave you.

Don’t kid yourself. It’s not terrifying, it’s just annoying because they have to spend more money on media influence to keep people in line and/or shift some stances (or pander) to attract other voters from the other side. Once again, you’re underestimating the entrenched power and media resources they already have.

You’re oversimplifying a much more complex issue and you’re wrong, but I clicked “like” on your post because you didn’t bother to include calling me a a moron or idiot this time, thanks.

The problem was that it was a very long response to position I never took and that you never actually directly addressed the position I advocated once

when your vote won’t otherwise count.

And that’s what you missed and that’s what I addressed. Votes to a third party don’t influence Democrats much at all (in most situations).

Democrats will shift to the right to offset the far-left losses by gathering more conservatives which are much easier to harvest than lefties are. I explained why this is the case in a previous post (and in my list which I’ve linked to yet again below). Getting support from the left is like herding cats.

Democrats rarely shift quickly to the left because they know it’s political suicide. There’s no money in it, not enough concerted support and it’ll basically de-fund their campaigns.

Extensive Pew Research shows that the ideology of most registered voters is conservative (see “advantages” list link below for why). The ideology of most Independent registered voters are moderate, but also more conservative than liberal (see “advantages” list for why).

This is to not say these ideological conservatives don’t vote for Democrats (they do), but many will switch in a heartbeat to Republican (or not vote at all) when Democrats go too far to the “left”. And by “left” I mean this as defined by their standards influenced and distorted by corporate mainstream media.

I explained the dynamics of this earlier and in my list called:
ADVANTAGES OF THE CORPORATIST RIGHT

Seriously reconsider its implications. It’s complicated, but that’s the reality.

I’ve personally known Democratic candidates that really want to be further to the left, but they often learn the hard way that they must push to the left very slowly over time. Otherwise, their ass ends up out in the street and greater evil Republicans happily step into their place.

This is the reality. They can’t quickly move to the left because there’s not enough support from the left. Obama had to have the absolutely horrific disaster of two GW Bush terms preceeding his campaign (among other factors) just to be able to even finally pander to the left and still win.

Do you not understand that if a state is a winner takes all state, and the state is solidly blue, that voting for a third party does not influence the results of the election, but it can scare the shit out of the party if the numbers start to climb too high?

I already addressed that. Third parties don’t have that kind of granular control and I already explained why.

Better than Romney? Sure, but you can still be pissed.

Where did I say people can’t be angry? Just don’t allow that anger to make you irrational and spin your wheels.

I didn’t expect much from Obama (:arrow_backward: 06/24/2008 04:29 PM) considering where we started after two disastrous GW Bush admins, but I’m still resentful and disappointed nonetheless. There’s nothing wrong with that.

But, it’s also about time for Obama’s base (former or otherwise) to look into the mirror and realize they shouldn’t have been so incredibly focused on that national election without putting that same effort and emphasis on local elections.

Putting all that energy into electing Obama without also putting in that same effort to thwart Republican filibusters and obstructionism was harebrained. Put that dissapointment to good use and try some introspection and better strategies in the future.

So one more time, this is my proposal.

You shifted from your more inane statements earlier and I congratulate you. Next time avoid misconstruing and exaggerating my positions while implying I’m an “idiot” in the first place and we can save some time.

BECAUSE This will do more to influence the party than giving them your rubberstamp vote that is not needed and will do absolutely nothing to influence the election.

I could see it working in specific cases with specific candidates at a local level, but as a general rule… no.

Sounds like a great theory, but it’s generally not worked in practice.

All that precious time, money and effort supporting and running a third party campaign (you can’t win) would be better used with a long-term strategy of attempting to counter the current power structure by eating away at it slowly over time. The two-party system is too powerful and entrenched for quick, magical change. I hope that this Obama fiasco will teach people that.

All the wasted resources on a born-to-lose third party campaign should be dedicated instead to desperately needed public education that counters mainstream media influence that keeps so many Americans in the dark (and leaning conservative). There’d also be more resources for these kind of actions as well. Once gain, it’s a long-term approach, it’s not quick, it’s not “sexy”, but it’ll actually work over time.

The groundwork hasn’t yet been laid for a third party to influence the Democrats, much less win. In most cases (even the ones you laid out) it’s much smarter to put your resources and/or votes elsewhere.

Also, Democrats’ greater diversity means that party leaders are bound to have more trouble managing their coalition than the Republicans will theirs. Let’s stop making it more difficult for liberal Democrats to organize and stop with the current third party pipe dreams. It’s a distraction, a waste of resources and it ironically keeps us further to the right when it’s not outright helping to usher in greater evil.

1 Like

I’m not sure ‘might be a little hard’ is a viable reason not to give other things a chance, are you?

The tools currently at our disposal are disappearing at an alarming rate, William.

Like I said, the problem is that you may end up with a table overflowing with utopian tools, but none of which ever gets used while you try to sort through them all. Meanwhile, in your distraction, greater evil prevails because you didn’t use the flawed tools you had when they were at your disposal.

In our current reality, what’s actually very hard is simply getting lesser evil to win in the first place. What also isn’t easy is finally getting the American public to stop ping-ponging back and forth between Democrats and Republicans because they get angry, stop being rational and don’t focus on long-term goals.

The reaction to Obama should be that we go further left (lesser evil) and finally break the horrible, reactionary ping-pong cycle of the past. But, if we push too far left, too soon with a third party that doesn’t have a chance in hell of defeating the Republicans but sucks away too many votes from the lesser evil, then it’s all for nothing and the horrible cycle continues.

The left needs focus.

Why not design something based on what we know now, rather than what we knew then?

I’ve never said that we simply vote in lesser evil and do nothing more at all. I just don’t think supporting a third party prematurely is helpful. We have to learn to crawl before we can walk.

To build a functioning, representative democracy is going to take decades no matter what we do. But, it’ll definitely take even longer (if ever) if we keep allowing Republicans to jam up progress by embracing false equivalency and not supporting lesser evil Democrats.

When a third party, lesser evil candidate becomes a viable alternative to Democrats, I’ll put my very life on the line to support them. We’re not there yet. It’s going to be decades.

See, you’re brilliant, but you’re still stuck in the context.

What about all the OTHER options for self government? Eco-villages, a co-operative corporation, planned communites, that sort of thing? What about all the voting systems that might actually work, unlike ours?

Why spend decades accomplishing nothing when we could instead create something powerful enough to protect people, well designed enough that the right people end up having influence and aren’t ruined by power, flexible enough to adapt in the face of new information, and built upon the lessons of the past?

I think some serious context-breaking is in order, don’t you?

1 Like

What about all the OTHER options for self government? Eco-villages, a co-operative corporation, planned communites, that sort of thing? What about all the voting systems that might actually work, unlike ours?

Sure, get a group together and try them. I’m just saying that supporting a third party prematurely is detrimental for all the reasons I’ve stated in this thread. I’m not discounting or discouraging most any other civic actions, experiments or what have you.

Right!

I’m just a big fan of not playing to their strengths. Giving too much energy to a system that clearly provides no real value drains energy and resources away from any other experiments.

We should have options. Right now we only one, I’m really tired of getting collectively punished by a system that’s been corrupted and gives us really horrible leadership. I don’t want to live in that stupid LARP anymore.

1 Like

We should have options. Right now we only one

I don’t agree that we only have one option at our disposal right now, but I do agree with you that the system is corrupt and has (overall) bad leadership. I do think some of it has more to do with our human condition than the flaws of any one system of government. I think considering how treacherous many humans are, it’s pretty amazing we’ve gotten this far. I also think that’s a testament to all the many good humans there are.

It’s always going to be a never-ending battle, but I think the good far outnumber the bad, so anything is possible as long as we continue to struggle against those who would oppress us.

By ‘one’ I mean 'we only have the choice to be part of one governmental system, generally the one we’re born into.

I don’t care who made it or how proud people are of it, it’s NOT working. It was an incremental improvement, and it’s time we took another step up instead. At least lets create some OPTIONS that people can choose between instead of trapping us all together in this one.

This one plays to the strengths of the wrong people. That should be the end of the discussion right?

1 Like

I don’t care who made it or how proud people are of it, it’s NOT working.

The former has nothing to do with the latter. I’m not following your logic there. And, to say “it’s NOT working” is a pretty vague, possibly black and white statement. Are you talking about the U.S. government or all government on Earth or what?

It was an incremental improvement, and it’s time we took another step up instead.

Forgive me, but I also find that vague.

At least lets create some OPTIONS that people can choose between instead of trapping us all together in this one.

What are we all trapped in? Sorry, I’m just not sure where you’re going with this.

This one plays to the strengths of the wrong people. That should be the end of the discussion right?

Maybe so.

Okay, let’s try this a different way.

A child is born.

That child should have access to as much of their and humanities potential as possible.

Being born in America, that child, upon becoming adult, is ruled by ONE system of government.

That system of government is poorly designed for actual people. It is not giving us good outcomes.

If you need specifics on ‘poor outcomes’, we can start with the quality of candidates who gravitate to political leadership roles, these individuals make HORRIBLE decisions because they are psychologically driven by election cycles, campaign financing, and other factors that are inherent in the design of the system. We’ve been at war pretty much constantly since the sixties and all that murder happens in our names.

We have no choice in how our resources are spent, we’re given no alternatives when it comes to how we handle big issues (i.e. Syria, how about we use that couple of billion to take care of refugees?), the quality of our infrastructure is horrible. . . I could go on for hours.

So why, tell me, is it considered rational to expect the next generation to have to deal with the same mess? We’d be better off with a lottery of random toddlers leading us.

I’m not proposing random toddlers as a system of government, but even that would be a better choice than what we have now. The problem is that I can’t choose to participate in a different governmental system, I can’t make sure that my taxes go to something better. I’m stuck in this one. And evidence indicates that it’s crap.

1 Like

these individuals make HORRIBLE decisions because they are psychologically driven by election cycles, campaign financing, and other factors that are inherent in the design of the system.

Well, as far as campaign financing goes, we could certainly use your support here:

Whether it’s your effort, a small donation, spreading the word… every bit counts.

So why, tell me, is it considered rational to expect the next generation to have to deal with the same mess?

No. Do something. Quit talking. Focus. Take action.

That’s exactly what I was describing as part of the problem. All that money and effort wasted to impose some slightly different badly watered down vision on everybody because of where they were born.

You’re smart, can you at least see the potential of combining a Valve with a Google and a Mondragon and putting some evidence based methodology on top, right?

Then you could put up several options, including turning ‘employment’ into ‘productive, peaceful citizenship’ if one chooses it, true? As a bonus it’s a circular mind hack that creates a dynamo of productivity in those who want a principled system while separating out the more destructive sorts by design.

Someone could do that in months, and the more people they hire, the less are contributing to this mess.

THAT would be doing something. Realistic and WAY faster. It should at least raise the bar, and the only arguments I’ve gotten so far are ‘hard to understand’,‘TL;DR’, or ‘This wouldn’t work and I’m exactly the sort of person who wouldn’t work in it’

I’ve been refining one thing since I came to this site, it’s gone from a few hundred pages of mess to a story to something that’s starting to make sense. How about we get a tiny fraction of that effort sent over to help something that can sustain itself, is humble, and uses actual science?

How about something that plays to the strengths of the people we can trust? How about making it better?

It’s difficult for me to follow you, sorry. If you’re on a peaceful mission for good, then more power to you and I hope your endeavor is successful.

Don’t you love when you get answers like that? :wink:

Perhaps you could put some of those neurons towards teaching me? Telling me what assumptions I make that I need to get out there? What ones you don’t need that are hammered into the dirt?

It’s NOT complicated, it’s just different.

I suppose if you really want to keep on having all these issues, poor education, war, political deception, and so on. . . then yes, you can feed the broken system more. The psychology of the current system guarantees decades more war, suffering, and manufactured scarcity. For some crazy reason I don’t want that.

I think we need some people who put real people before fake rules at all times. Because as far as I’m concerned I’m not the radical here.

Whoah, epic wall of text duel.

I’m never the first guy to call TL;DR, but after making it halfway through I’m gonna throw in the towel.

But +1 Will. Quit worrying about the deckchair arrangement; we need to get off the Titanic.

While you are inventing paradise can you help the rest of us push this monster up this big ol’ hill. Just vote your conscience for the guy closest to your own position. Even if it sticks in your throat to do it. Even if they are wrong about almost everything. Pull or push or we will never get there. Withholding your vote is the same as outright voting for evil.

2 Likes

Oh, I vote when I’ve got something to vote for or a real evil to lesser, but that’s not a huge amount of time, no money, and very likely almost no discussion supporting one candidate over another.

I’m talking about the rest of our time, our money,and whatever neurons we can spare. . . aren’t they spent better looking at what HASN’T been tried? Trying to develop something that can get us out of this mess? Shouldn’t all of that effort be spent at least raising the bar a little?

See, if we all went with the options we’ve come up with and a few more people contributed resources and ideas then we’d already be done with this. Give us or something like us a fraction of either party’s budget and we bootstrap this way before any election cycle can get around it.

And guess what? They just gave us Citizen’s United.

What happens when everybody wants to work at a good natured uber-Google with a really lovely dream that gives them at least part of their lives back but our government tries to stop us from having that option?

What if they have a list of candidates to primary, and they’ll happily bus their employees to vote and generally make it as easy as possible, and do all they can for everybody else? What if they start with Stewart/Colbert vs Colbert/Stewart?

One election cycle, max. More likely, not even that.

Be CLEVER, people!

We can crowdsource a revolution.

1 Like

Damn straight.

A revolution of evidence-based policy inside a box labelled ‘business as usual’ for the win.

We can forget about which arsehole to vote for, in our lifetimes.

But first, give up on the idea of changing politics from the inside.

1 Like