We’re just going to disagree on that, I guess. I only think it’s wrong if there’s an impact, nobody has offered up anything that contradicts that very reasonable fact-based stance.
I kind of consider the whole ‘you must vote’ bit to be somewhat ideological and think it’s forcing people to focus too much on a completely broken system rather than look for alternatives. What was nifty in the late 1700s is trash in the 21st century. I don’t consider it a privilege at all to have my vote count just the same as a random dudebro.
No. There’s no “agreeing to disagree” here. People died in wars to give you the privilege to vote. It’s not something “nifty” that you can giggle at as a relic of the past. It’s something every American should be legally required to do. If you aren’t participating, you have no right to complain.[quote=“William_Holz, post:123, topic:79465”]
I don’t consider it a privilege at all to have my vote count just the same as a random dudebro.
[/quote]
That’s the entire point of voting: that everyone’s vote is equal. A dudebro, a senator, or someone who thinks that voting is irrelevant because Math. Are you seriously arguing that your vote should be worth more because you’re smarter than a ‘dudebro’? And because it’s not, then you won’t vote?
While you’re coming up with alternatives, you’re still an actor with agency in the current stupid, broken system, and while your choices might be of small consequence, they’re not irrelevant. Stepping away from making the frustrating choices involved in the current reality of the dumb system doesn’t help realize anything better. You can do both. Also, the system’s designed in a way that the primary way change comes is from within, so deeper participation is more likely to help than other approaches.
I’m unsure what you’re suggesting. Am I going to fight him in manly combat? Well, no.
What I’m saying is that by refusing to participate in the process, you give up your right to complain about the outcome. No, I’m not going to physically stop someone from complaining, but I also won’t “come off it”, whatever that means.
Well, then we can go with you’re wrong and I’m right. I’m not sure what you’re shooting for here.
No they didn’t. I didn’t ask them to. Nor did I ask to be trapped in an Oligarchy. That’s something people SAY, that doesn’t make it true.
That’s not likely to create better results. Have you been to Waffle House?
I totally do, and am. I’m opposing and working on creating other alternatives that would work better for us humans as we are rather than expecting us all to suddenly ‘get it right’ when evidence has validated that this system does not produce good results.
And that works great, doesn’t it?
Nope, that’s not what I said. I said I don’t bother voting except in primaries or if there’s a chance my vote might actually be impactful (very small, local elections and such).
There is NO reason for us to have starvation or war anymore. They’re completely unnecessary, yet our flawed systems keep these completely immoral things going and I’d rather depopulate war (which is the plan) then pretend that this is working.
How’s that war going in the Middle East that we started a while back? And how’s that “strong corrective action” going?
Besides, as the white dudes say (and being one myself), what’s the big deal? trump just says silly things about [women, people of color, disabled people, pretty much anyone who is not a white billionaire], so why is everyone frothing at the mouth? Oh, sure sure, he wants to kick your family out of the country because of skin color or religion or whatever, but get over it already.
… you’re wrong in practice.
I’m just trying to understand how this is at all a meaningful, helpful, or otherwise interesting statement. All you’re saying is that you’re going to stop taking him seriously, because you can’t speak for the rest of the world. In which case you should have started immediately, otherwise it’s hard to take the promise seriously.
And the popular vote as well. Not the outcome I was hoping for, but she’s still the candidate that the voters chose and that’s what elections are about.
There is no satisfaction to be had from such a thing. It’s just that my efforts are focused in a completely different direction, one that doesn’t end up wasting so many useful emotions, energies, and resources.
Like I said, if my vote ever WILL make a difference then I’ll go ahead and play the game. Polls are useful for that, though I’ve never, ever been part of a vote that was close enough to matter, going back over 25 years.
Agreed. i don’t like clinton. That doesn’t mean I WANT trump to win, because even though I doubt he sincerely believes the racist rhetoric he spouts he’s still spouting it and people are still seeing it as a sign it’s OK to be more openly bigoted after eight years of the slow festering ramp up of ‘Fuck Blackie’ and eight years of ‘Dem derty brown people’ before that.
However i will not vote for a person I dislike purely because of some party affiliation. That ‘well i have to vote this way because lesser evil’ is part of how we gt here in the first place. Well that and winner take all and the electoral college.
Is there any chance any of the candidates, when combined with Congress and the Senate, will do anything that we’re particularly happy with?
The best we can hope for out of the political process is to keep them from ruining everything for everyone. I don’t think ‘where we need to be’ or even ‘where we’d like to be’ is ever going to be an outcome. It certainly never has been, especially since the two party system took over.
I don’t think Clinton is a good choice, but it’s who we’re lumbered with.
The trouble is that only one person can be President, and that almost certainly means someone from the centre-left or centre-right. I don’t see a situation like what recently happened in Austria coming along any time soon.
What we need is more progressives elected at state and lower levels, and voting reform to allow parties other than the GOP and Dems to win representation - some form of proportional election, perhaps constituencies + top-up like they have in the Scottish parliament? That could easily work for state legislations, and I see no reason why it couldn’t for congress, either. I don’t seen any politicians proposing that, though. I guess the powers that be know that if (to pick the most obvious alternatives) Greens and Libertarians could win election, more people would vote for them.
At presidential level, we need an instant run-off system and the electoral college needs to be consigned to history.
I’d like to see something done about the anti-democratic nature of the senate, too - not sure how easy that is, but seriously, you have as much power as the Senator from Wyoming (elected by 180000 votes and 120000 votes) that you do from California (elected by 8 million votes and 5 million votes)? That makes no sense to me.
Someone here somewhere suggested a while back that congress should be increased to have one congressperson per the same amount of people as it did to start with. 1 in 30000? That’d be interesting, but they might need a bigger building - or alternatively more power should be devolved to the state. I’m not sure what use a congressperson who ‘represents’ 750000 people really is. Do they ever raise their constituents’ concerns directly?
