2012 Presidential election thread

[Dak]

I would imagine it would depend on what is being recycled and how. I re-use stuff all the time (grocery store bags are garbage bags, refilling cups instead of disposable, etc.), but I do not "recycle", as the process for recycling in many cases is of rather questionable benefit, and sorting and hauling recyclables to a center is a major loss of utility when the dumpster is less than a block away.

 

[Cythraul]

I don't know if you're hinting at the electoral college here, but (1) the electoral college almost always follows the popular vote thereby indicating that the body of voters as a whole does have influence, and (2) there are elected offices other than the presidency where voters have more direct control over who gets elected.

No, I wasn't hinting at the electoral college. My point depends purely on a matter of numbers. Given the number of people who typically vote, my one vote doesn't make a whole lot of difference.

No, but telling people on a forum that you are not planning to vote does have a causal effect on others' tendency to vote.

I was actually thinking about this after I posted that. Basically I'll just say that I guess I might not vote but PLEASE EVERYBODY ELSE VOTE SO I CAN FREE RIDE ON YOUR VOTES.

I don't see how this is really relevant, but i guess i am curious to know if you consider the effort involved in, say, recycling to be a justification to not do it since an individual's decision to recycle has "virtually no causal effect" on the environment.

It's just another consideration for me. If it were not a loss of utility for me, then the other objections wouldn't carry that much weight I guess. It sort of breaks the tie, because otherwise the choice to vote or not to vote would probably be arbitrary for me.

I guess the situation with recycling is the same in the relevant ways. I think democratic participation and recycling (unless it involves some kind of remuneration for me) might both count as classic public goods problems. That would certainly explain why P. Diddy has to make death threats to get people to vote.

 

[Einherjar86]

I definitely can't agree with this. Whether or not my decision not to vote amounts to accepting a predator-prey relationship is dependent upon what causal powers my single vote has. It's pretty obvious that my vote has virtually no causal power with respect to who becomes the president. Furthermore, it's pretty obvious that my simply deciding not to vote has no causal effect on other people's tendency to vote. So the relevant causal effect of my decision to vote or not to vote is simply nowhere to be found. Since (1) I know that I can free ride on other people's votes, (2) I have good reason to doubt that I can make justifiable decisions in many cases about who ought to rule over me at any particular moment, and (3) voting is a loss of utility for me (it takes time and I don't like going to the voting place), then I have virtually no reason to vote at this point other than to signal to other people, "hey, look, i r a responsible citizens!!

I'm uncertain as to why you're making this point, since, theoretically, your vote does have causal power (although it's hardly measurable); so I want to be sure I'm understanding you.

I take your statement to be a direct reply to Grant's suggestion that by not voting one accepts "by default" a predator-prey relationship with those in power. Are you claiming, on the other hand, that even by voting one is still likely to enter this same relationship, since individual votes themselves possess so little causal power? So why vote, since the predator-prey relationship isn't avoided by doing so? This is how I'm understanding you.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

No, I wasn't hinting at the electoral college. My point depends purely on a matter of numbers. Given the number of people who typically vote, my one vote doesn't make a whole lot of difference.

...

I guess the situation with recycling is the same in the relevant ways. I think democratic participation and recycling (unless it involves some kind of remuneration for me) might both count as classic public goods problems.

So what would you consider a good approach to solving a "classic public goods problem"?

You say your individual vote doesn't matter, but by saying that you seem to be avoiding the whole problem at hand. If there are always enough votes in every election that any given individual's vote "doesn't matter", and if the majority of people who do vote always make terrible voting decisions, the system doesn't work. There are plenty of possible remedies for such a problem, I'll throw a few out:
- provide a better education for voters
- declare a national "study holiday" of sufficient length to allow voters to properly study the candidates and issues
- implement a more direct democracy where voters decide more on issues than on officials, and make sure the issue proposals are simplified as much as possible to reduce confusion
- make voters take tests on the issues they are voting on to ensure a certain level of competency

There are risks involved with most/all of these ideas (and keep in mind that I'm only throwing out simplified versions of these ideas that ought to be fleshed out), but I think one would be hard pressed to assert that we're better off implementing none of them.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Another neat idea that just occurred to me is that every citizen could be offered a choice to either pass a competency test for voting on an issue or give their vote to someone else who has passed the test and whom they deem qualified to represent them. We could theoretically do away with the whole notion of an official legislature this way -- representatives could be established at just about any scope / popularity level throughout a country.

Basically, you can have direct democracy if you're qualified, but if not your default option is representative democracy.

 

[Dak]

Another neat idea that just occurred to me is that every citizen could be offered a choice to either pass a competency test for voting on an issue or give their vote to someone else who has passed the test and whom they deem qualified to represent them. We could theoretically do away with the whole notion of an official legislature this way -- representatives could be established at just about any scope / popularity level throughout a country.

Basically, you can have direct democracy if you're qualified, but if not your default option is representative democracy.

So who gets to decide what the standard of competency is?

 

[King Richard]

shit just got real in here, I'll have to read this all later after i roll a fat J and spank it to sarah palins pics

holla

 

[Alteredmindeath]

It doesn't matter the government already knows who they are going to pick they just try and make the people think they are voting for who they want to be in office.

 

[Onder]

Fuck. I read the last page and it feels like I've heard all those things like thousand times before. Move on.

EDIT: Seriously, every 18 (or insert your voting age) year old had to think about "why to vote" or "why not to vote". The things you guys pleghmed the last page with are thoughts that MUST HAVE been in mind of any person with the right to vote (apart from retards and stupid morons). You discuss things that are obvious.

 

[Pessimism]

It's probably because you have and this is a tired argument that, for the last five times it's been debated here, has gone absolutely nowhere.

 

[Onder]

It's probably because you have and this is a tired argument that, for the last five times it's been debated here, has gone absolutely nowhere.

Of course. I even further edited my post because I was so angry at this. Seriously, as if you were all twelve.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Um, excuse me but I think I tend to come across new ideas and perspectives on these problems from time to time, some of which I just expressed but seem to have met with an audience who has no real interest in thinking deeply about the problems and coming up with alternatives to the status quo that they hate so much. That would be the reason such people consider these arguments to be "tired".

 

[Draehl]

Which is why if this thread is to exist we should focus on specific candidates...

Ron Paul and Herman Cain both strike me as genuinely good men. Even putting their politics aside they at least seem like they're not a part of the machine, haven't sold their souls, and just seem like honest guys as politicians go.

Obama and Romney both you can tell they're both corrupt as shit and are lying through their teeth about pretty much everything. They're here to control you.

I can't get a bead on Bachman...even though she's tea party I'm not quite sure...

 

[Dak]

Among other things, Herman Cain's prior involvement in the Federal Reserve system suggests he is part of the machine.

 

[Einherjar86]

Um, excuse me but I think I tend to come across new ideas and perspectives on these problems from time to time, some of which I just expressed but seem to have met with an audience who has no real interest in thinking deeply about the problems and coming up with alternatives to the status quo that they hate so much. That would be the reason such people consider these arguments to be "tired".

Easy dude. On the previous page, Dak posed a serious question to your proposed competency test that you didn't answer.

If these tests you suggest merely evaluate a citizen's knowledge of what each party stands for, I would claim that that isn't enough. Knowing that the democrats want to raise taxes and fund more welfare programs isn't going to change the stubborn mindset of someone who doesn't believe in/agree with such institutions.

Likewise, a liberal who learns that conservatives want to offer more tax cuts to the rich and ban gay marriage won't shift his or her views by learning this fact. The type of education you're suggesting seems inherently problematic to me for two looming reasons:

1. Better education won't alter people's belief systems; they might learn that there are third parties that offer candidates who represent view closer to theirs, but most people will also learn that third party candidates aren't likely to get elected, and thus will vote republican or democrat.

2. If we want to educate people on more in-depth issues, such as the ethical implications of abortion or affirmative action, or ideological perpetuation of the capitalist system, or even more general issues such as the politics of each individual third party, then this will require a huge amount of money in order to a) fund an educational institution oriented specifically toward voters' competency, and b) allow those too poor to afford such education the opportunity to learn. The only way such an institution will ever come to fruition is (in my opinion) if the type of overhaul and shattering of the status quo that I'm so frustrated with takes place.

That is, I can only foresee your idea happening if the solution you seek to affect has already taken place.

 

[Dak]

Not to mention, if we are going to educate, not only who getsa to decide who is educating, but what the education consists of, and what is the standard of competency.

Since anything that would more likely be taught in this manner would be of subjective value in nature, I must protest this option as logically invalid in achieving a more logical/rational population, which would be a more profitable goal for everyone except someone interested merely in coercion and deceit.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Pat I just forwarded you an email conversation about this stuff I've been having with some non-forum friends. Maybe tonight I'll try and reorganize those ideas into a post in this thread for the benefit of Chris/Dak/others.

 

[Badbird]

Bernie Sanders should run for president. A honest and unbrought man from Washington, who ever thought that?


Bernie Sanders 2012!

 

[zerostatic]

Not to mention, if we are going to educate, not only who getsa to decide who is educating, but what the education consists of, and what is the standard of competency.

Since anything that would more likely be taught in this manner would be of subjective value in nature, I must protest this option as logically invalid in achieving a more logical/rational population, which would be a more profitable goal for everyone except someone interested merely in coercion and deceit.

Damn...I'm flashing back to my seminar on Ancient Political Philosophy in college...your post reminds me of Plato's The Republic. Education? Fuck. In this age, people have easier and faster access to information than any other fucking generation in the history of the world, and it has made them more ignorant than any other generation because there is no respect for knowledge.

Kudos to Zabu for some quality posts. The publics' knowledge of the American political system is pathetic, but in reality...it always has been. A few years ago, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was on the Daily Show. She commented that in a recent poll more Americans could name a judge on American Idol than could name a branch of American Government. And they call this the information age...

 

[SentinelSlain]

Capitalism, to me, seems much more in line with nature- embracing our strengths and weaknesses while socialism is much more artificial. Either in a 100% pure form is dangerous. Capitalism can let a small group of people grow too powerful and suppress the rest while socialism keeps society as a whole down due to a lack of incentive for innovation and effort.

The USSR managed some particularly notable scientific accomplishments. Also, development and the level of technology, in the area it encompassed, increased massively with the rise of socialism.

In the real world, some of the problems associated with socialism don't actually exist, case in point, Cuba is a net exporter of doctors.