Would you give up your right to vote for $1 Million?
- Thread starter nailz
- Start date
Ascension
New Metal Member
Not mine they haven't
I have a feeling that if the country went to hell in a handbasket...the Mason Dixon line would become the new Marginal Line. Welcome to the South boys...ya'll don't come back now...ya hear!
Yeah l'm sure some of the self proclaimed "bad mofos" would fold in the face of martial law & subsequent outlaw of weapons.
But...l'm gonna take it that you don't know too many many people from the South. And l mean "real Southerners"...not the tree huggin', bran muffin eatin' mommas boys that moved here from the North.
I think people are assuming because I say I'd give up my right to vote for a million that I don't vote. I do vote. I just know that when a candidate wins by 65% but gets 100% of a state's voting power, my single vote didn't matter that much. Electoral college makes individuals not matter so much in non battleground states. I'm for a popular vote system. Which of course will probably mean it'll end up a race of which party can ship in the most voters from the poor houses & old folks homes in all 50 states instead of those 10 or so.
Kaosaur
Member
And by the time something of the nature you are bringing up happens, it's far beyond too late to do something about it. Why is it people in this country are so hell bent on the "it could be worse" philosophy? It's being proactive that is going to keep people from being reactive. But what the hell, if working in the technology field has taught me anything, its that people would rather ignore the writing on the wall and fix things as they break. Some day, somewhere, something is going to break that is beyond repair, and all of the sudden, all of the services in your neighborhood is going to be controlled by the mafia, and, again, as the technology field has taught me, everyone will be up in arms screaming "WHY DIDN'T ANYONE DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS?"
You'd be surprised how having a 4 year ongoing war can cause distress to a family with several in the military for long after the people who served have come home due to detrimental losses both physical and mental due to a corrupt political stance and rediculious beaurcratic red tape. Please do not assume that I am idly taking an interest because I have nothing else to do. It belies an extreme ignorance in your stance. Yes, the decisions of our "great leaders" have indeed, personally, affected me. To think they have not affected you, directly or indirectly in some way, is absurd.
Hear hear my friend. Well spoken.
Maigus said:
Heheh. No doubt. The real way one person CAN be a difference maker.
Michael TEOF
Master Whorebot
I think a large portion of the "my vote doesn't really count, anyway" mindset comes from the current voting process (Electoral votes, specifically). In all reality, it really can *not* count due to the way the tallying system is set up in today's elections. Quite sad, really. I, personally, am appalled at the fact that local legislation can be voted in to be voted on, be overwhelmingly voted in to law by "we the people" only to be shut down by Federal legislation. No wonder there is such a sense of corruptly inspired apathy around today.
Even with all that, I do believe that one person can make a difference... as long as it's a whole hell of a lot of one persons that are taking action to make a difference.
It's like having too many cooks in the kitchen with a giant book of old recipes and ingredients that are all past their use by dates. The head chef can't read or measure for shit and only graduated Culinary School because Daddy used to run the place. All the Sous Chefs want to do is scream at each other as to how much better they are at doing what everyone else should be doing, so nothing really ever gets done. Then... *BAM*... the orders need to go out 'cause the Reviewer for Fine Dining Mag is getting pissed along with all the patrons. Enter the Ratatouille nightmare with a shitload of vermin doing all the cooking. Everyone eating in that thar establishment would probably end up getting food poisoning. In the real world the staff would get canned, the restaurant would be closed and not allowed to be opened again until they passed a very rigorous inspection. Egad how I wish the government was run more like friggin' Emeril's.
I agree with everything you said, except for the part about the electoral college. I would be very frightened the second that system was taken away.
I'm about to post a lengthy reply here to set up my argument, so bare with me.
The United States of America was originally created as a system of towns that were represented by their respective states. Most important legislation is still taken care of at those local levels. The intention of the national government was to unify and represent those states.
Ever wonder why we have two separate houses of congress while most other countries simply have one parliament? Congress is supposed to represent the interests of the people in their respective districts and the Senate is supposed to represent the interests of their respective states.
All states hold elections for their senators and the United States President. In reality, we're only supposed to be voting for our state legislators and governor who then choose your senators to represent the states interests in congress as well as vote for your president. Don't believe me? Read the Constitution.
The problem I have with nationalizing voting systems is that it centralizes control. Imagine if we elected our next president by a national voting bureaucracy that controlled, transported and counted all our votes. What would happen if that process was corrupted? The process already is corrupted. In large urban areas, voter fraud is horrendous. The fact that the current voting system is fragmented and controlled by 50 individual states is a good thing. I would never trust a large bureaucracy to accurately count every vote. In the city of Chicago where I'm from, there is rampant electoral corruption.
Even if you want to believe that a large federal bureaucracy could handle counting, transporting and tallying our votes with 0 corruption (just one instance of corruption would have a massive impact), eliminating the electoral college in favor of national voting would give urban constituents an uneven balance of power. The President of the United States of America is supposed to represent the interests of our country. Without the electoral college, why would any of the current candidates visit Hawaii, Alaska, Nebraska or Utah? They'd all go to New York, California; the hell with the rest. Segments of the country that are more densely populated would have their interests catered too; while the rest of the population's interests would be ignored. That means more federal funds appropriated to New York and California. Many state and regional interests would no longer even be considered.
The United States federal budget for 2007 is 2.8 trillion dollars. Why is it so large compared to the minute state budgets? Because we now elect our president and senators directly instead of as representativies of our states. All the money now flows to the top. And 2.8 trillion dollars is hard to ignore, of course. Who doesn't want a piece of that 2.8 trillion? That's why everyone votes in the national election moreso than the state elections (which actually have a larger impact on their day to day lives). The current system where we all vote independently to decide where and who gets how much of that 2.8 trillion is insane. Sadly, that's the current path of this country, and it's unlikely to change.
Being an American, isn't about voting or politics; it's about the opportunity to work hard and make a living for yourself and your family. Voting in national elections to see how much of that 2.8 trillion dollar pie (money and property taken from others) you feel your entitled to is insane. We should vote to ensure our our freedoms are protected. Our states should have representatives at the national level to ensure their interests are protected. They no longer have that. And that is exactly why the feds are a 2.8 trillion dollar money monster.
I hope you've enjoyed reading.
The Michael
Yippee38
Living the dream!
For me, selling my vote is really moot anyway. I vote. I vote by not voting. I cannot support any of the presidential candidates that I've seen in the upcoming election. Therefore, I will not vote for any of them. Show me a candidate that is worthwhile, and I'll vote for them.
Nothing irritates me more than people voting for a particular candidate because "they've always voted republican/democrat" or because their father and grandfather always did, or because they're in a union and union members are supposed to vote democrat, etc., etc., etc.. The other part is people who vote for one candidate not because they think they are worthy or the best candidate, but to keep the other guy from getting in.
Thanks for the interesting post Michael.
Urban breed
Member
Sorry if I confused you.
I meant it more like: "Cheer up! You could be wrong."
(I wrongly made the assumption that everyone would assume I knew how to count.)
You re so right with that statement Yippee, but there is an alternative other than not voting. Write-In a worth candidate, i have done that on many occassions. And what that does, is let you express you wishes by voting. And it lets others no you are not happy. I think in the movie "Brewsters' Millions" it was said perfectly vote for NONE OF THE ABOVE, but do vote in some way form or fashion. Again I respect your views , and i have seen this situation all too many times here, 60% of the people in this town vote a straight Democrat ticket, no matter who the candidate is, and it pisses me off.
So to all that say they will not vote, that is your right and your freedom to do so, and i repect it, and will defend your right to do so, but as i have said try to find some way to get involved.
Michael, your my hero, I agree with everything you said above, it is very well thought out, and written, I salute you for being so well informed.
skyrefuge
Member
It's human nature. Although our long-term planning skills as humans are pretty much the best in the animal kingdom, we're still largely "reactive", especially when being proactive involves something as abstract and uncontrollable as "politics". Generally the costs of being proactive outweigh the risk of being reactive ("we're all gonna die anyway, so who cares?"...see the global warming thread!)
I'm not saying that we should be satisfied with voter apathy. I'm just telling you why it is like it is. And I'd rather be living in an environment where people don't vote (because they're comfortable) than one where everyone votes (because things have finally reached that breaking point). Of course, the ultimate situation would be one where everyone is comfortable and they DO all still vote, but I think the only way to achieve that is to change human nature.
Ah, sorry, I didn't think of that. That's certainly a concrete connection. And I'd bet that voter turnout is pretty darn high amongst people who have similar connections. However, the military is now quite small relative to the entire population (thankfully), so most people still don't have that direct, immediate connection.
Neil
freakchylde
PPUSA Driver o' Doom!!!!!
Whats stopping you from running? Run on an internet campaign and save a ton of money
Yes, I didn't call it pathetic for that specific reason, hence the use of the word "apathy" in my post :
What's stopping me from running.....For starters, I don't believe in sugar-coating (that costs enough votes as it is, please see the latest Dem. Debate as an example - complete with everyone missing Obama's use of "garnish" and "wages" in the same sentence). I also deal with clinical depression, which is bad enough with the run of the mill stupid people, and my violent tendencies might lead me to pull a "Mars Attacks" scene on the Hill - where there are lots of stupid people vying to run my life (or even at the local level, which I'll get to in a minute). Oh yeah, have I mentioned the erotica portfolio I have (even though I'd probably run as a Rep. and would have the "Yeah, so?" response when someone used it to attack me). Oh, can't forget that Pagan label, works oh so well with the whole "Christian Right" voting block. Fact is, I don't care much for labels, but unfortunately those labels would cloud anything that came out of my mouth for the majority of Americans, thus nullifying my candidacy.
As for the local politics, well, I'm white. And my county is extremely rigged (if you remember the story about the out-going Sheriff contracting a hit on the in-coming Sheriff, in a GA town, that would be mine). The County board elections are also grafted, to the point that the last person who tried to run against the Co. CEO ended up in court, losing, to the incumbent, who sued her to make sure she couldn't run. Go GA politics, hasn't changed since before the Civil War. Otherwise, I'll be moving to CA sometime in the near future, and I don't even want to be bothered with the joke that I consider that stuff. It's beyond rehabilitation. At this point, I'd be more likely to advocate armed rebellion and just start over with our foundation (we are overdue for a revolution, ya know).
Yip, agreed. I'm hoping I'll be able to vote for Thompson, in the Presidential election, as he's the only one that I can vote for, in good conscience. Which should be interesting, as it would be the first time I've voted for a Republican for that office. I don't believe in voting for the "lesser of two evils", either I agree enough that I vote for the person, or I don't and write-in fictitious candidates so I can vote for the local stuff that directly effects me. That is the whole crux of what is wrong with our system. It's not about being a candidate, it's about not being your opponent. Which, my roommate noted when we watched the last CNN debate. All of the top 3 Dems spent more time proving they weren't George Bush Jr, or Hilary Clinton, instead of proving that they'll have the best interests of our nation at heart.
booB
Señor Member
I'd vote for you. Hell, who DOESN'T have depression (clinical or otherwise) these days... and an erotica portfolio (although mine isn't so much a "portfolio" as a "hard drive", and it's technically of "other people", rather than "myself")... Besides, you could always run Libertarian. Anyone can run Libertarian, because they're mostly there to make a statement, and don't have a snowball's chance in hell anyway... you've GOTTA be just as good if not better than the gun-toting maniac who's currently representing them -- at least you're not a maniac.
A-ha! Doesn't southern California have a libertarian congressional district? You may be onto something here.
Yippee38
Living the dream!
Besides, you could always run Libertarian. Anyone can run Libertarian, because they're mostly there to make a statement, and don't have a snowball's chance in hell anyway... you've GOTTA be just as good if not better than the gun-toting maniac who's currently representing them -- at least you're not a maniac.
I used to vote Libertarian just to make the statement. I agree with some of their tenets, but some of their stuff is just over the top (and a bit maniacal).
Pellaz
Tigron of Immanion
Moreover, people are complacent about 'the economy' because, by and large, people ARE doing better than they were ten years ago.
A recent random survey of about 100,000 tax returns done by the Department of the Treasury showed that, through a decade's time, people in every income bracket took home more money after taxes than they did at the beginning -- except the top 1% of earners, who took home less.
The lowest quintile (lowest 20%) of earners at the beginning of the decade did quite well, with nearly 60% increasing their earnings enough to get into the two next-higher brackets, and 12% rising even farther. Pretty good for minimum-wage earners.
So, that thing about 'the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer' is largely a lie. Golly, I'm surprised.
The Social Security system and the tax code are already broken beyond repair. You don't hear many politicians talking much about either.
Anyone can run Libertarian, because they're mostly there to make a statement, and don't have a snowball's chance in hell anyway... you've GOTTA be just as good if not better than the gun-toting maniac who's currently representing them -- at least you're not a maniac.
I'm a small-ell libertarian because, although I agree with many tenets of the Libertarian Party, they just tend to be way too silly and overboard, and -- unfortunately -- totally unwilling to compromise on anything. It's a shame, because ultimately this is the general direction we need to go.
+1
OrbWeaver
BECAUSE FALCONER
Yeah, I was confused. Then I figured out what you were saying. After the fact, of course. *facepalm* D'oh! to me.
On Libertarians: This is one party that I COULD get on board with, but they remind me a bit of anarchists. So until I find a party that I REALLY like, I remain undeclared politically. Though I do believe in the system of checks and balances in place, so if someone like Ron Paul got elected, he wouldn't be able to do everything he wanted. This applies to any candidate, however.
Hell, I would take less than a million dollars. I think I would take as little as 50 thousand, but a million is fine. This discussion just makes me think of an episode from my favorite show, South Park. You are either voting for a giant deusch or a terd sandwich. I am just counting the days anyways until I can get a good opportunity and have the money to get out of this country anyways. I am not completely certain where I would want to move, but away from here is all I know. That million dollars would be my money to go move elsewhere and get away from this country, that to me, has not gone to hell but has turned completely into HELL.
MetalRose
ProgPower EMT
I would not. In todays market, $1 million isn't a TON of money. Yes it is a lot, but if I were to give up my right to vote I'd have to be offered at least $5 million a year until the day I die, with the option to change that amount based on inflation.
Then I would CONSIDER it. I've voted every single year since I was 18. And to be honest, there is NO reason NOT to vote. If you can't get out to vote, a ballot can be mailed to you. And legally you cannot be punished for taking (up to 2 hours I believe) from your job, paid, to vote.
-Metal
Then I would CONSIDER it. I've voted every single year since I was 18. And to be honest, there is NO reason NOT to vote. If you can't get out to vote, a ballot can be mailed to you. And legally you cannot be punished for taking (up to 2 hours I believe) from your job, paid, to vote.
-Metal
If this country is Hell, I'd like to know how some of the decidedly 60% of other countries who fair much worse than us are considered. How old are you, just for curiosity's sake?
Similar threads
