Election day thread

[skeptik]

I think people have the (physical) ability to do as they wish. Sure, they can voice their weightless opinions, there is no doubt about that. But when you have the opportunity to actually do something to alleviate the pressures/stresses that exist in the system by educating yourself on the matters at hand, and willfully disregard said abilities in order to remain ignorant, then no - I don't believe they have a valid reason to complain.

I was talking about not voting, not being ignorant. Just because you don't vote doesn't mean you're not educated. Uneducated people shouldn't complain because they don't even know what they're talking about, not because they didn't vote. Also, your opinion is just as weightless even despite the phantom powers that voting grants you.

 

[Badbird]

Oh and fuck you California voters that didn't vote against Prop 19.

 

[Pessimism]

I was talking about not voting, not being ignorant. Just because you don't vote doesn't mean you're not educated. Uneducated people shouldn't complain because they don't even know what they're talking about, not because they didn't vote. Also, your opinion is just as weightless even despite the phantom powers that voting grants you.

Dodens, we are arguing about nothing: I am literally talking about the uneducated not having the right to complain (and using not voting as their excuse), specifically in regards to when they have the means to easily educate themselves. You are saying the uneducated do not have the right to complain because they are uneducated - NOT because they didn't vote. The only difference here is that I in this instance am assuming that people hold voting as their civic duty by means of contractual obligations. So sorry for that. I think we can both agree that people who refuse to educate themselves have no valid grounds for complaining.

I think it's obvious that not voting does not equate to not being educated; many people already proved that point on this board by being able to argue their reasons for not voting. An unintelligent person would probably just sat there with their mouth agape and taken what was shoveled at them. Hell, we haven't been arguing about the right to complain since this topic exploded, we have been arguing about the government (how fucked it is) and if it can be fixed. All of us are also doing a piss poor argument defining our foundations for our statements, which is just leading to more tangent bickering (like you and I were just doing).


I disagree with you an educated persons opinion being worthless though. Even in disagreement an educated persons opinion is worth something (all things being contextually applicable of course, no one needs an architecture's opinion when heart surgeons are discussing the best way to shtick a ventricle). If you are simply referring to my opinion as far as voting for partisan employees, well... I do have to agree with you there (to a point).

Certainly my unique snowflake princess opinion would not count, unless it was rallied with a large enough group of other opinions which share a common theme (in this government at least). Naturally this means a lot of my own opinion would be lost amongst the much larger and much generalized voice, but that is expected.

If we really wanted to argue about something in this regard, here are a few things: 1. Partisan politics being necessary/unnecessary for a large government, 2. duties (if any) that a citizen must take part in, 3. Can a large government actually provide the roles a government is typically held to uphold (large as in physically huge population), 4. etc.






That article is also fucking depressing. The G.O.P. have seriously turned into a group of powerful (yet stupid as fucking dirt) Bond villains.

Let it be known that I am not a defender of government, and think the two party system is in essence a terrible blight on humanity. All my prior arguments were simply meant as this: if a government is composed of people who are to act for the people (while still safeguarding the rights of the minorities), then a civically active populace is necessary. If you want to tear down the government and start anew (I approve of this), then you need to organize and take action. Not voting is not going to work unless it is an organized protest, but while you are working on such things, you can still vote on non-partisan issues that will be affecting millions of people until your plans for the overthrow and restructuring of the government are complete.

 

[King Richard]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, political parties should be abolished and made unlawful.

 

[skeptik]

Pessimism: I think the problem was that I took your original criticism of people who "have not researched/voted" as two separate things, when you apparently meant it as one, and I was only responding to the second half. So in essence I was saying that people who don't vote but are nonetheless educated have every right to speak up as those who did vote, and you were saying that people who did not take the time to actually know what they're talking about probably shouldn't say anything - in other words, talking around each other. Based on your comments in this post, it sounds like your "weightless opinions" comment was directed toward the uneducated, whereas I took it as directed at those who did not vote. My response to that was essentially that voters and non-voters have equal weight to voice their concerns. I guess the only thing we're really disagreeing on is the whole "civic duty" thing. Should everybody educate themselves and vote for what they feel is best for themselves and for their community, state, and nation? Yes, but should they be compelled or feel obligated to? I would have to say no.

Honestly, I would have voted if the one ballot initiative in my state was in any danger of not passing. But as far as the actual candidates up for election, there was nobody that I wanted to vote for, including all of the third party candidates. I think sometimes people make the mistake of glorifying third parties simply because they pose an alternative to the duopoly system, but really, more often than not they're no better, and sometimes worse. The fact is that the primary role of third parties in our system is to bring to attention certain key issues that the two major parties are forced to address.

 

[The Emptier]

I'm not even old enough to vote but in Oregon there was a ridiculous amount of polical ads on TV, i never watch tv but it's always on so I constantly saw these commercials ripping each candidate apart, I hate how people can think they'll get votes for saying what's bad about their opponent and providing no information on what they personally want to do or why they're better. I saw one single ad where the guy didn't talk crap about anyone and it was badass, I would've voted for him because he didn't throw political slander around. The only good things that come out voting, although I don't know shit about political stuff, is the measures that are passed. that seems to be the only real change that occurs, whoever gets elected the same shit happens....nothing. I can't even believe we call ourselves a democracy (representative).

 

[Kara-Shehr]

So does our tax and justice system, making real change even less likely.

Is that a rhetorical question or do you want a serious answer?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Ok, that'a fair point but answer me this: who in reality always wins the election? A Republican or Democract. So wasting a vote on a third party candidate is the equivalent of not voting in the first place. It may not necessarily feel that way to the voter, but that's the sad reality of the situation.

Ok, so depending on what you mean by "the election" the chance of a minor/independent candidate winning varies greatly. The Green and Libertarian parties have held seats in several state legislatures. Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders, while having strong affiliations with the Democratic Party, have won US Senate elections running as independents.

Regardless of the type of election though, I do not see how voting minor or independent is "wasting a vote". Let's suppose it's November 2008 again and you want to vote for Bob Barr, the Libertarian presidential candidate. If you have no preference between Obama and McCain, you are not wasting your vote by choosing Barr. If you do have a preference, say Obama, then you can talk to a friend or family member who you know prefers McCain but would rather see another candidate elected (let's say Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party). Then you make an agreement with your friend that both of you will vote for your preferred minor party. That way Obama and McCain both lose a vote, the minor parties gain two votes, and no vote is "wasted".

Now imagine how different our elections would be if everyone who wanted a minor party candidate in office followed this method. That's where the whole "encouraging people to give a shit" thing comes in -- not just to give a shit about fixing the two-party problem but also to have the intellectual courage to adopt a new approach toward voting. Obviously the political establishment isn't going to be making the election system fairer for us anytime soon; we have to take it upon ourselves to compensate for the flaws in the system.

 

[Srontgorrth]

No, it is not someone's duty. I equate the responsibility of voting with voluntary military service. Military service isn't mandatory either lawfully or morally, therefore neither should voting.


Ok, that'a fair point but answer me this: who in reality always wins the election? A Republican or Democract. So wasting a vote on a third party candidate is the equivalent of not voting in the first place. It may not necessarily feel that way to the voter, but that's the sad reality of the situation.

Well, I believe that it is a civic duty to do so, though I guess there is no point in arguing about it since your opinion won't change.

Although it doesn't happen often, independents still get elected to office. There's one in the Senate now, as well as Lieberman who is an Independent Democrat. Lincoln Chafee, now governor-elect of Rhode Island is independent. There have also been independent governors elected in Maine, Illinois, Oregon and Texas. Florida's governor, although elected as a Republican, is now independent.

Were those votes wasted? The reality of the situation is no.

 

[Pessimism]

Pessimism: I think the problem was that I took your original criticism of people who "have not researched/voted" as two separate things, when you apparently meant it as one, and I was only responding to the second half. So in essence I was saying that people who don't vote but are nonetheless educated have every right to speak up as those who did vote, and you were saying that people who did not take the time to actually know what they're talking about probably shouldn't say anything - in other words, talking around each other. Based on your comments in this post, it sounds like your "weightless opinions" comment was directed toward the uneducated, whereas I took it as directed at those who did not vote. My response to that was essentially that voters and non-voters have equal weight to voice their concerns. I guess the only thing we're really disagreeing on is the whole "civic duty" thing. Should everybody educate themselves and vote for what they feel is best for themselves and for their community, state, and nation? Yes, but should they be compelled or feel obligated to? I would have to say no.

Honestly, I would have voted if the one ballot initiative in my state was in any danger of not passing. But as far as the actual candidates up for election, there was nobody that I wanted to vote for, including all of the third party candidates. I think sometimes people make the mistake of glorifying third parties simply because they pose an alternative to the duopoly system, but really, more often than not they're no better, and sometimes worse. The fact is that the primary role of third parties in our system is to bring to attention certain key issues that the two major parties are forced to address.

Yeah, I figured that's what was going on.
We can be cowbro's again

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Oh and fuck you California voters that didn't vote against Prop 19.

Well, it didn't pass anyway, so if I'm understanding you correctly, you have nothing to complain about you teetotaler.

Is that a rhetorical question or do you want a serious answer?

Neither, it was a comment.

 

[IamstheblackWizards]

My mom made me vote. I tried to stay on top of the whole election, I like reading the paper during midnight tea and crackers snack time, but I feel like I really didn't like or care about anyone I voted for. I tried watching the news too, all it is is mutual political slander and empty promises.
I got absolutely nothing at all out of it. Except it was kind of fun to scan my ballot in the little machiny thing. I was tempted to steal the "special pen" provided to fill the bubble sheet in to examine what was so god damn special about it, but I didn't.

 

[The Emptier]

Kids say the darndest things

 

[Badbird]

Ok, so depending on what you mean by "the election" the chance of a minor/independent candidate winning varies greatly. The Green and Libertarian parties have held seats in several state legislatures. Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders, while having strong affiliations with the Democratic Party, have won US Senate elections running as independents.

Regardless of the type of election though, I do not see how voting minor or independent is "wasting a vote". Let's suppose it's November 2008 again and you want to vote for Bob Barr, the Libertarian presidential candidate. If you have no preference between Obama and McCain, you are not wasting your vote by choosing Barr. If you do have a preference, say Obama, then you can talk to a friend or family member who you know prefers McCain but would rather see another candidate elected (let's say Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party). Then you make an agreement with your friend that both of you will vote for your preferred minor party. That way Obama and McCain both lose a vote, the minor parties gain two votes, and no vote is "wasted".

Now imagine how different our elections would be if everyone who wanted a minor party candidate in office followed this method. That's where the whole "encouraging people to give a shit" thing comes in -- not just to give a shit about fixing the two-party problem but also to have the intellectual courage to adopt a new approach toward voting. Obviously the political establishment isn't going to be making the election system fairer for us anytime soon; we have to take it upon ourselves to compensate for the flaws in the system.

.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I love the eerie silence that tends to follow my mentions of votepacting these days. Have I really done that good a job of convincing everyone that they don't need to vote for Democrats and Republicans, or are people just ignoring me?

 

[Dak]

I am ignoring it because what will really happen is both people will agree to the pact then go vote for the big party candidate thinking they just eliminated a contending vote.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

There are those of us who have people in their lives that they trust, you realize.

 

[Pessimism]

There are those of us who have people in their lives that they trust, you realize.

Do YOU realize what YOU are saying!?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I don't know, why don't you tell me?

 

[Pessimism]

Do I really need to post the tinfoil hat again?