That tells me you didn’t read the differences I linked let alone follow them to other important ones noted by @Cowicide; these are demonstrated differences between what parties implement, which might be larger if the votes weren’t so evenly split. Or else you consider matters like how many people are dying from lack of civilized health care or war minor, trifles we can safely ignore while we gamble on applying even less constraint on how officials are picked, in which case I simply can’t agree.
And those are all differences between people who got in, or stood some chance of it. Do we really think none of the people considered in primaries, not a Santorum or Perry, would ever make a difference that hurts people? Because they found enough support there, so really the reason they weren’t run is because they weren’t expected to get past the general electorate. Well, that’s the constraint you’re asking to give up.
In exchange for…I’m not sure, really. The corporate influences certainly haven’t been unhappy to find people aren’t voting, which is what makes work strikes effective. We need to do a lot of overhaul to this system separate from voting, but I don’t see what makes putting even less check on these people in the mean time a sensible idea.
I’m not sure I follow your point about candidates making a difference that hurts people.
How do you measure ‘hurts people’ from what is and what may have been? Would any of the other candidates have lessened drone strikes around the world? Actually lowered taxes on the poor and raise those on the wealthy? Promises are made and continually broken. The barefaced lying of those in power just makes me think we’re all being taken for fools right in front of our faces.
I guess the whole crux of my argument would rest on the legalities of such a hypothetical situation of a complete vote-strike.
If it’s ‘politico-business-as-usual’ on a miniscule turnout, then yeah, maybe it’s a bad idea. But if it’s got the legal power to put the handbrakes on an out of control system, then I think it’s an idea worth mulling.
On the first question, not that I know of. On the second question, not quickly, but if you can’t determine that the shifting of tax burden from wealthy to poor has been much more pronounced with one party than the other you aren’t paying it attention.
And again, those are only with people who actually get presented to the general electorate; Romney agreed with Obama’s use of drones, but other would-be candidates said it was much too restrained. And those charts and other differences I linked, are you just going to ignore them?
Low voter turnout certainly goes with politico-business-as-usual now - compare the US to other democracies - and as I’ve said you can see which people want it lower still.
I’ve not ignored your charts. I can see that there are differences in policy and implementation, But these things are limited and slow, and the chasm between the wealthy and the poor still continues to widen, debt swells and trillions is spent on guns’n’spyin’.
On the issue of things like drones, of course you can’t know, despite the promises, until the politician is in power and promises are broken, often to deadly effect.
I don’t believe the political opposition to things such as healthcare and taxes are ideological beliefs, these are opposed because shareholders want their politicians to represent their interests, not those of the nation as a whole. And until the corporatocracy is removed from politics there will be constant opposition to reasonable policy.
I really would like to hear an idea that would manage to achieve that, but until then I cannot condone the system by agreeing to play by the rules as they are.
I absolutely see your point in low voter turnout being of benefit to the status quo. That’s probably the biggest flaw in vote-strike, it would require not a majority, but a totality. Only if not one vote was cast by the ‘99%’. Maybe that’s the pipe in my dream. @Ereiamjh
I see that your Green Party does promote caps on donations, but in a ‘first-past-the-post’ system it will always be distilled down to a two-horse race, and with all the financial backing on only two horses no other party can ever have a chance of an even-footing.
It’s this corporate influence that’s the key to the whole thing. It’s that which we have to focus all our energies on. I believe things can only change once that is removed. Anything else is just chipping away at the facade.
And yet the chasm between wealthy and poor depends on who is in, and the debt is actually one of the charts I used to show the difference. So the reason they’re growing continually is not that the parties are the same, but that America on the whole has no clear preference between them and votes them in indifferently.
Again, if you’re envisioning a system where 99% of the people are striking, well the voting is not so limited that you would get demands if people were really so united them. For instance, the green party would have a landslide victory with that kind of support for it, so if you say voting it in is unrealistic than so is such a broad strike.
The problem is that right now of those who do vote, half vote in favor of greater wealth inequality and deficits and so on. You see people who argue large corporate influence or drone wars are acceptable or even good, while others might agree they’re bad in the abstract but don’t let that sway votes, which in practice says they don’t mind.
Well, that’s what lets these things happen and encourages candidates not to bother about them beyond what money wants. That skews the system far toward them, but the basis for any real change still involves convincing more people to oppose them, and in the mean time less voting by people who do care is just a way to give candidates even more reason not to.
