I’m starting to repeat myself here so i’ll make this the last post on this topic.
"If you could count on the entire electorate working with you, there wouldn’t be a need to strike.
No matter which political persuasion, if you’re part of the 99% you’re worse off than you were in the 70s. I don’t see a problem working together with differing persuasions in order to achieve a common goal. This happens around the world often.
“you don’t make a realistic plan by ignoring what people believe”
If you believe the system is rotten then it doesn’t matter your political belief. This is a common belief to us all. Ask anyone of either side if they’ve been truly happy with any government in the last 30 years.
“you’re asking everyone to give up their say”
Not at all. I’m asking for them to exercise their power, so that we can have more of a say without the rotten influence
“democracy really does give the majority, if not what they want, the things they will accept”
Like illegal war, massive inequality, poverty, unemployment, social insecurity, corporate influence and debt. It doesn’t matter who’s in power. These things will increase regardless of whether you accept it or not. Politics has no will to change things, it is interested only in money, importance, power and career.
Please, please, let’s stop dividing ourselves. We have no power at all divided, and all the power in the world together. The 2 party system is a serious problem. There is no us and them. There is no bad guys vs good guys, and a 3rd party will never make it whilst all the money is being funneled to only two parties.
That’s not true. You say all those things like they are calamities visited on people, but in truth, every single one has many supporters. There are those who stand up for the wars, illegal or not, and don’t mind debt if those wars are what create it. You can hear posters here stand up for corporate influence and massive inequality as giving the successful their due. You would think executing people with unfair trials would be abhorrent, but judges become popular doing just that. And yes, there are people who want social insecurity, to the point where a really weak health care plan was proclaimed the end of the country.
And yeah, some of these things do depend on who’s in power. I gave graphs related to both debt and unemployment in this same thread; if you want me to believe the electorate has no say over them, you need to provide some evidence. Because right now they look much more like examples of the power voting does have, just…tragically wielded in the wrong direction.
So look, I agree with you that the two party system is a disaster, in no small part because it is biased toward allowing such problems; but it still takes input from the public, and those problems only endure because there are people who vote for them to endure.
I agree with you that we shouldn’t let ourselves be divided, and that we have our power from coming together. But you can’t stand in solidarity with someone until they ask for at least some of the same things as you, and right now, even your minimal demand - a cap on corporate influence - is surprisingly not that popular. The first step must then be to make it popular.
When that happens, I don’t think a vote strike would even be necessary to get it in place, but if it were I would be all for it. Until that point, though, the politicians for these things would like nothing more than to let their supporters decide things while everyone else stands back. As others have pointed out, they’ve already been fighting for that.
Don’t give it to them. Voting is a small and inadequate part of making positive change, but it is still a part and covers more ground than you are giving credit. The promise you see in leaving that power to people who do support these problems, just the way the would-be-disenfranchisers are fighting for, just does not seem convincing to me while they still have that support.
Good luck with the rest, though, pixleshifter. I think we agree on at least two important things: this isn’t where we should go, and it will take much work outside the electoral system to fix the course.
Non-participation is the most idiotic choice you can make, unless you make money in a way that means you don’t pay tax… and even then other people pay tax and you’d want their taxes to be spent along the lines of your political leanings.
Mandatory voting is a good thing.
Google, it’s not hard.
Everyone is democrat or republican in politics. You want a seat or to have your voice heard? Pick one of the two parties- they’ve passed too much legislation to ever let a new party compete with them. They’re not about to have another Bull Moose happen.
Any vote made is a vote for the system (Parliament). What do you do if you don’t believe in that?
Are you saying that anarchism is not a valid political view?
That’s cool, but don’t expect much to change. I’m as anarchistic-ally minded as many but pragmatic enough to realise that those in power are not going to let go of their iron grip without a fight… and they have all the chess pieces.
In Australia we have a parliamentary system and mandatory voting. If you don’t believe in the parliament you can refuse to join the voting register (they can come after you with a small fine for every election in which you don’t vote) or - and it could be argued that this provides a better avenue for expressing rejection of a system - you can cast a donkey vote in which you get your name ticked off the list as having voted but then just cover the voting sheet in penises or whatever. At least they keep track of how many donkey votes are cast, whereas if there’s no mandatory voting it’s impossible to tell whether people aren’t voting due to political disengagement or outright rejection of a system.
This is the Cowicide we all missed.
You would think executing people with unfair trials would be abhorrent
FTFY 
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
