American Politics

[hym 358]

I would argue that there are three types of voters in the United States:

 

1. Those who vote for the status quo.
2. Those who vote against the status quo.
3. Those who vote for the status quo by virtue of not voting.

[Sabretooth78 808]

One of the best symptoms of the broken system is when you look at who controls who goes on the ballot.  In most (if not all cases) some representative of the democrat and/or republican party is at the helm of the local, county or state election board.  Why is this not a non-partisan position?  Why, therefore, is it nearly impossible to get a 3rd party or non-affiliated name on a ballot?  There's a very good reason why, and it doesn't take long to figure out what it is.  Hint:  Control.  In my county, the commissioners (emphasis on the plural) of the election bureau consist of a fossilized democrat and a petrified republican (each) who basically have an agreement to take turns and not hurt the other guy.  Forget why these useless sacks of redundant DNA even get paid; why do they have this incestual relationship?

 

Here's another one:  Why did republicans change the rules in the 2012 primaries when Ron Paul was starting to have strong showings and was the only "republican" candidate polls were showing beating Obama in a head-to-head matchup?  Why was their consistently weakest-polling candidate never asked any tough questions - remember the trumped-up media frenzy that accompanied every other candidates' fall from grace on what seemed like a weekly basis - and given the presumptive nod right from the start?  In a campaign in which he (as expected) blew?  If republicans "hated" Obama like they claim, they would have chosen ANYBODY (forget RP) else from their stable to run against them?  I'll give you, re-running the McCain/Palin circus trainwreck would have been optimal yet way too obvious.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Theoretically Elections Canada is an independent body and quite apolitical.  Considering the number of cases they have brought against various parties and party members there is a good chance that this is true.  The ruling Conservatives recently tried to muzzle Elections Canada and got their fingers most ungently slammed in a door.  More Canadians are politically active than Americans by proportion I think.

 

If you look at the last election, the Liberals got dumped from HM Loyal Opposition to third place, and the minority Conservatives got a majority, which was a mistake.  We won't be fooled again.  Canada does best all around when we have a minority government, which is, I believe, impossible in the U.S.  We actually have five parties with elected members in the House of Commons, and recently a sixth party (of two AFAIK) was formed.  Of the big three (Cons, Libs, NDP (Centre socialists)) any one of them could get enough seats to form a minority government next time out (October 2015).  We'll see when the real campaigning starts up what platforms are offered.

 

Theoretically the election is supposed to be 44 days after the Governor General signs the writ dissolving the House, but they sure are walking fast right now.  Our elections are becoming more and more Americanized and many do not appreciate it.

[hamsterTK 93]

I guess it depends on how informed you are in local politics and if you care or not.

 

It's not uncommon for there to be only a few hundred votes cast in a city council race in a small town. In that case, your one vote and maybe bugging your neighbor or friends to vote does really matter.

 

Personally, where I live the Republican party and incumbent candidates completely dominate the national and state office elections so while I always vote just because, honestly it can be kind of dull. But this year there was a person running for city council who really alienated me, and a person running for school board I really want to see win, so it was exciting to vote. Also I felt I had to vote against a state proposition that would take money out of the rainy day fund and spend it on roads, not including toll roads. Not a good idea IMO, a rainy day fund should only be used to stabilize a budget during an emergency. Also toll roads aren't a bad idea for suburban oriented highway projects. And I don't think this is such an awful time to take out debt to build infrastructure, since the price of interest and the price of construction materials are both down and will only go up.

[iLoveMusic 66]

 

I would argue that there are three types of voters in the United States:

 

1. Those who vote for the status quo.
2. Those who vote against the status quo.
3. Those who vote for the status quo by virtue of not voting.

 

And yet all three produce the exact same result. At least by not voting, I'm not fooling myself or anyone else. Of course, I don't hold those who don't vote just out of apathy in high regard. I believe that, if you don't vote like me, you should at least be informed. Be educated. I believe you're oversimplifying this, twisting my views to fit your belief system that I'm still voting for the status quo. I'm not. I can't stress that enough. I don't contribute to the problem like voters do. Voters are putting these incompetent people into office, not me. By voting, I'd be another pawn in their game, an unenlightened simpleton voting more unenlightened simpletons into office to continue having things go the way the elite want it to go. But I don't vote, so I don't contribute to the mess you all have created. I want nothing to do with it. I feel like I was sent here from another planet, to take notes on what I see. The entire political process alienates me.

[hym 358]

Also I felt I had to vote against a state proposition that would take money out of the rainy day fund and spend it on roads, not including toll roads. Not a good idea IMO, a rainy day fund should only be used to stabilize a budget during an emergency. Also toll roads aren't a bad idea for suburban oriented highway projects. And I don't think this is such an awful time to take out debt to build infrastructure, since the price of interest and the price of construction materials are both down and will only go up.

 

Out of curiosity, what is the concern with diverting a portion of the revenue stream for the Rainy Day Fund for road work?  As I understand it, the existing funds are not going to be touched.  All that is happening is that the state is saying "we need $5 billion for road maintenance, so let's split the oil & gas revenue going to the Rainy Day Fund and use it for road maintenance to help make up some of the difference."  At some point, you get enough money in the fund that it makes sense to start reinvesting it back into the state.

 

I'm not questioning your decision.  I'm wondering what the detailed thinking was.  (I haven't voted yet, and I was planning to vote in favor of the proposal, but you have brought up a point I wasn't aware of so I am now reconsidering.)

 

And yet all three produce the exact same result. At least by not voting, I'm not fooling myself or anyone else. Of course, I don't hold those who don't vote just out of apathy in high regard. I believe that, if you don't vote like me, you should at least be informed. Be educated. I believe you're oversimplifying this, twisting my views to fit your belief system that I'm still voting for the status quo. I'm not. I can't stress that enough. I don't contribute to the problem like voters do. Voters are putting these incompetent people into office, not me. By voting, I'd be another pawn in their game, an unenlightened simpleton voting more unenlightened simpletons into office to continue having things go the way the elite want it to go. But I don't vote, so I don't contribute to the mess you all have created. I want nothing to do with it. I feel like I was sent here from another planet, to take notes on what I see. The entire political process alienates me.

 

Consider it a different way:  You're walking home and you discover someone being assaulted in a back alley.  You have 3 basic options:

 

1. You can help support the assault (possibly by helping the assailant get away)
2. You can attempt to stop the assault (possibly by calling the police)
3. You can do nothing

 

Under option 3, the individual is actively choosing to not get involved in the situation.  However, by choosing to not get involved, many would argue that the individual is effectively choosing option 1, even if the individual did not believe he was supporting option 1.

 

In management theory, when an individual notices a problem but chooses to do nothing about it, he is doing one or more of the following: 1) supporting the continuation of the problem (complicity in the problem's existence), 2) engaging in a form of self-victimization (see "blame others" in the ladder of accountability), 3) demonstrating organizational disassociation ("not my problem!").  When this happens in general society, it helps contributes to the socio-political rot we experience today.  And it's the wrong attitude to have.  No matter how much anyone wants to simply be an observer in the political process, they can't be.  There are no non-actors.  You are either supporting the status quo or you are not.  Trying to sit on the sidelines and think that you are not doing anything is delusional thinking.  No one living in a democracy gets such a luxury.  What one is doing is simply following the currents as they flow one direction or another, supporting whatever trends those things represent.  By not voting, you are surrendering yourself as a willing victim to whatever those who do vote decide they want to support.

 

No one ever said that the political landscape would be pretty or that you wouldn't be forced to make significant compromises to support the goal of trying to move forward.  That is the nature of humans working together.  It's a messy process at times.  Sometimes it even involves one or more entities threatening to exercise a "nuclear option."  Even in those moments of political theater and stupidity, one can still sometimes find positive changes and evidence that people can change things if they are willing to work hard enough.  In spite of its problems, it is important to remain involved.  There is no moral high ground is standing on the sidelines and blaming others.

[krbe 193]

While I completely agree with you that there are no non-actors (we are political animals), disdain for non-voters is wholly counter productive. Why? Because the removal of an individual makes no difference AT ALL. Does voting actually mean that you participate in the political process? Your action indicates so, but what is political action without meaning and purpose?

Yes - you do need to be involved. However, the system favours itself, and the structures are not only built to protect itself, but continually alienating the electorate, most visibly by lifting more and more responsibilities from the local to the regional, national and supranational level. Who are the politicians? It is a dedicated political class, not the citizens.

And then there is the way the politicians feel the need to bind their country and electors with international arrangements - the relations to foreign countries matter more than the people back home. This trans nationalism is perhaps the most alienating process of them all - as there is no way this can be reversed without getting control of the top-level executive and in some cases also the consent of the other countries. Case-in-point: tax agreements. That seems to be next to impossible to fix, and there is a template way to conclude them. Why would we accept that perhaps the most important power of the people is to be so far removed from the political process?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

One can argue that a single vote might just tip the scale between two candidates in a close race.  Quite often, polls and hype notwithstanding, election races are only decided at the ballot box.

 

People who declare before the fact that they choose not to vote are really voting for the incumbent.  There is no such thing as an 'I don't care' vote.  Voters ought to care enough to vote for the very best in their opinion.

 

I have always advocated an election reform that could really upset some apple carts.  Every ballot should have an entry reading 'None of the Above'.  If this entry gets the majority of the votes, this should cause a by-election in which none of the previous candidates are allowed to run.  It is one way of getting a clean slate.

[iLoveMusic 66]

 

Also I felt I had to vote against a state proposition that would take money out of the rainy day fund and spend it on roads, not including toll roads. Not a good idea IMO, a rainy day fund should only be used to stabilize a budget during an emergency. Also toll roads aren't a bad idea for suburban oriented highway projects. And I don't think this is such an awful time to take out debt to build infrastructure, since the price of interest and the price of construction materials are both down and will only go up.

 

Out of curiosity, what is the concern with diverting a portion of the revenue stream for the Rainy Day Fund for road work?  As I understand it, the existing funds are not going to be touched.  All that is happening is that the state is saying "we need $5 billion for road maintenance, so let's split the oil & gas revenue going to the Rainy Day Fund and use it for road maintenance to help make up some of the difference."  At some point, you get enough money in the fund that it makes sense to start reinvesting it back into the state.

 

I'm not questioning your decision.  I'm wondering what the detailed thinking was.  (I haven't voted yet, and I was planning to vote in favor of the proposal, but you have brought up a point I wasn't aware of so I am now reconsidering.)

 

And yet all three produce the exact same result. At least by not voting, I'm not fooling myself or anyone else. Of course, I don't hold those who don't vote just out of apathy in high regard. I believe that, if you don't vote like me, you should at least be informed. Be educated. I believe you're oversimplifying this, twisting my views to fit your belief system that I'm still voting for the status quo. I'm not. I can't stress that enough. I don't contribute to the problem like voters do. Voters are putting these incompetent people into office, not me. By voting, I'd be another pawn in their game, an unenlightened simpleton voting more unenlightened simpletons into office to continue having things go the way the elite want it to go. But I don't vote, so I don't contribute to the mess you all have created. I want nothing to do with it. I feel like I was sent here from another planet, to take notes on what I see. The entire political process alienates me.

 

Consider it a different way:  You're walking home and you discover someone being assaulted in a back alley.  You have 3 basic options:

 

1. You can help support the assault (possibly by helping the assailant get away)
2. You can attempt to stop the assault (possibly by calling the police)
3. You can do nothing

 

Under option 3, the individual is actively choosing to not get involved in the situation.  However, by choosing to not get involved, many would argue that the individual is effectively choosing option 1, even if the individual did not believe he was supporting option 1.

 

In management theory, when an individual notices a problem but chooses to do nothing about it, he is doing one or more of the following: 1) supporting the continuation of the problem (complicity in the problem's existence), 2) engaging in a form of self-victimization (see "blame others" in the ladder of accountability), 3) demonstrating organizational disassociation ("not my problem!").  When this happens in general society, it helps contributes to the socio-political rot we experience today.  And it's the wrong attitude to have.  No matter how much anyone wants to simply be an observer in the political process, they can't be.  There are no non-actors.  You are either supporting the status quo or you are not.  Trying to sit on the sidelines and think that you are not doing anything is delusional thinking.  No one living in a democracy gets such a luxury.  What one is doing is simply following the currents as they flow one direction or another, supporting whatever trends those things represent.  By not voting, you are surrendering yourself as a willing victim to whatever those who do vote decide they want to support.

 

No one ever said that the political landscape would be pretty or that you wouldn't be forced to make significant compromises to support the goal of trying to move forward.  That is the nature of humans working together.  It's a messy process at times.  Sometimes it even involves one or more entities threatening to exercise a "nuclear option."  Even in those moments of political theater and stupidity, one can still sometimes find positive changes and evidence that people can change things if they are willing to work hard enough.  In spite of its problems, it is important to remain involved.  There is no moral high ground is standing on the sidelines and blaming others.

 

So going by your logic, it makes no difference whether I vote or don't, then? It's always the same, it's just a shame, that's all (haha Genesis  )). What I was trying to prove in my earlier posts is that it wouldn't make a difference either. Delusional thinking is the notion that voting actually changes anything. So even if you think you're voting against that status quo, you're actually supporting it since you can't change it anyway. You don't have the power to change it, and the elite would never give that power to you since it goes against their interests. It's a game where the only winning move is not to play. You see those people on shows like Jerry Springer? They are the average Americans, and they all vote. And they overwhelmingly outnumber the rest of us. I would say that maybe a little revolution would help, but we'd probably end up in an even bigger mess than we have right now. 

 

Like krbe pointed out two posts above this one, the removal of one individual makes no difference at all. Your example of me just watching and possibly aiding while somebody is being robbed in an alleyway is flawed, for the following reasons: 1) You're going under the assumption that something can actually be done about this, particularly by including the second option of potentially fending off the attacker - this option has no equivalent in the voting & political process, and 2) Your "police" (incumbents) would actually be on the side of the attacker anyway. Therefore your scenario can't be applied here. You're being too optimistic, you can't change what they do. They control your lives. Cast your votes, write/type your letters, sign your petitions - it doesn't mean a thing. They own you.

[hym 358]

You're being too optimistic, you can't change what they do. They control your lives. Cast your votes, write/type your letters, sign your petitions - it doesn't mean a thing. They own you.

 

In just 10 days, Texans are going to have to make a decision on whether they want to change the law on how oil & gas tax revenues are funneled towards the state's Economic Stabilization Fund.  The proposal is to divert half of those incoming funds towards road maintenance.  If the change happens, it will be because Texans voted to make the change and lawmakers will be legally obligated to implement the change.

 

In the bigger picture, a road funding proposal is not necessarily a big deal.  However, it is an example of the the fact that average individuals can and do change how their government functions.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

^^ What a sad attitude.  I am not owned by anyone, period.  Who is this mysterious they that own you?

[iLoveMusic 66]

 

You're being too optimistic, you can't change what they do. They control your lives. Cast your votes, write/type your letters, sign your petitions - it doesn't mean a thing. They own you.

 

In just 10 days, Texans are going to have to make a decision on whether they want to change the law on how oil & gas tax revenues are funneled towards the state's Economic Stabilization Fund.  The proposal is to divert half of those incoming funds towards road maintenance.  If the change happens, it will be because Texans voted to make the change and lawmakers will be legally obligated to implement the change.

 

In the bigger picture, a road funding proposal is not necessarily a big deal.  However, it is an example of the the fact that average individuals can and do change how their government functions.

 

It's an illusion. Just going on my word here but I guarantee you, Texans won't have the final say in it. They won't know where the money goes or who controls it, despite probably being told otherwise by their government.

 

^^ What a sad attitude.  I am not owned by anyone, period.  Who is this mysterious they that own you?

I know it's not something anybody wants to hear. I don't want to come off as sounding like a d**che (though I guess that ship has sailed....apologies there)....but the truth is seldom pleasant.

 

They = elite. The ones who make all the important decisions that affect all of our lives every day. The criminals on Wall Street, the corporate swine, advertising and marketing people (marketing products to you and convincing you that your lives constantly need "upgrading" and more consumption, they do this every single day) - they have all the connections and they are completely untouchable. To them, we're just economic assets. Faceless wallets. Disposable consumers. Government-issue pawns in The Great Game. They own all of us. We all have Social Security numbers, credit cards, most of us live on a grid, inside of blueprints, statistics on government charts. They can read your emails & texts, tap your phones, track and monitor you via global positioning satellites, beat you up for no reason and get away with it, create laws or mend existing laws to allow them to get away with just about anything they want, and if they don't like what you're practicing, they'll just come and kill you while news & media outlets slant the coverage in their favor (1993 Waco Siege comes to mind). Most of what we do every day occurs in a purely manufactured societal & cultural economic structure, inside a hyper-kinetic technological industrial grid, manipulated by the elite as they see fit. And you can't vote it away. It's not cheerful by any means.

 

Oswald Spengler, a German historian, once said "Life in America is purely economic in value, and lacks depth." I know you're in Canada but the same principle applies, more or less. The elite count on people to remain as unenlightened, poorly educated half-wit consumers, who vote and think that they are making a difference (when they really aren't), and then go back to sleep. Wake up the next day, clock in and clock out, do it again. Keeps them quiet, as long as you throw in a couple gadgets and gizmos. Give them a new car that lets them go on Facebook while they're driving. I bet the elite prefers that America's educational system remains utterly mediocre - wouldn't want an intelligent population actually capable of waking up and realizing how bad they're being screwed by their own government. They might rise up and become unruly, and demand actual change (not the artificial "change" that was advertised in 2008). Wouldn't be good for the elitists and top dogs - once again, it goes against their interests. They won't let it happen, and right now they are invincible. The table is tilted towards them, and the entire political system is rigged in their favor by design alone.

 

I don't want to copy Carlin again here, but "I have no stake in the outcome" serves well here. I watch the freak show....and take notes. These things interest me.

[krbe 193]

 

 Voters ought to care enough to vote for the very best in their opinion.

 Why is it more virtuous to throw your vote behind a solution or candidate you cannot support than abstaining?

[hym 358]

 Voters ought to care enough to vote for the very best in their opinion.

 Why is it more virtuous to throw your vote behind a solution or candidate you cannot support than abstaining?

 

You may not have anyone or anything to support, but you always have people and things to vote against.  There are individuals who genuinely need to be shut out of the political process and ideas that need to suffer a crippling death at the polls.

[iLoveMusic 66]

I found two holes in your "three types of voters" theory, by the way.

 

You give three examples of voters: Ones who vote for the status quo, ones who vote against it, and ones who vote for the status quo by not voting. Well, right off the bat - the second one can be eliminated since voting doesn't change anything anyway, so this can be merged with voting for the status quo (first type of voter). The other hole in your theory is that if voting and not voting are apparently both voting for the status quo, then isn't that just another reason not to vote? This is going by your logic, remember. Your theory actually supports my notion of not voting. Why bother voting if it's no different from not voting and vice-versa? None of these will change a thing anyway. The elite gets what the elite wants. Elections are an illusion of choice.

 

Just more food for thought.

[Duke87 1,070]

The problem is that the US is generally a society that pays no attention to events or ideas outside of its borders. Americans tend to be very narrow-minded. There is a set box of ideas that people simply do not think outside of.

 

In terms of illusion of choice, this itself is another consequence of having only two parties of significance and having large numbers of people who will always vote for the same one no matter what. And this is where you get the whole red state/blue state drama. I, for example, can comfortably say that a Democrat is going to win any major election where I live because it's a blue area in a blue state and that's just how it is. So in this sense my vote doesn't matter because there isn't any actual competition. The winner is decided in the primary (if there is one), not in the general election.

 

Regardless, I still vote every year since I see it as my duty to do so. I've ceased bothering to research and judge serious candidates, though. What I do now is just vote exclusively for third parties, regardless of who the person or the party is. In my mind I'm not voting for that person, I'm voting against both Republicans and Democrats because to hell with the lot of them. 

[hym 358]

The idea that voting doesn't change anything is an opinion.

 

To go back to the Texas proposition, assuming the measure passes, Texans will be redirecting approximately $1.26 billion dollars of income from the state's Economic Stabilization Fund and into the Texas Department of Transportation to fund road maintenance.  TxDOT has already announced how it intends to spend the money.  Approximately $500 million of that will be spent on road maintenance in the Eagle Ford shale area to keep the roads in serviceable condition to allow fracking operations to continue.  The remaining approximately $750 million will be spent on various road projects throughout the state (San Antonio, Austin, and the Dallas-Fort Worth areas will likely receive the bulk of that).  Additionally, TxDOT provides financial reporting explaining how it is spending the money it is receiving.

 

Is it the equivalent of creating a viable third party or electoral reform?  No, it is not.  At the same time, it is still voters making a very direct change to how their government operates for the purpose of trying to improve the situation they are in.

[iLoveMusic 66]

The idea that voting doesn't change anything is an opinion.

 

To go back to the Texas proposition, assuming the measure passes, Texans will be redirecting approximately $1.26 billion dollars of income from the state's Economic Stabilization Fund and into the Texas Department of Transportation to fund road maintenance.  TxDOT has already announced how it intends to spend the money.  Approximately $500 million of that will be spent on road maintenance in the Eagle Ford shale area to keep the roads in serviceable condition to allow fracking operations to continue.  The remaining approximately $750 million will be spent on various road projects throughout the state (San Antonio, Austin, and the Dallas-Fort Worth areas will likely receive the bulk of that).  Additionally, TxDOT provides financial reporting explaining how it is spending the money it is receiving.

 

Is it the equivalent of creating a viable third party or electoral reform?  No, it is not.  At the same time, it is still voters making a very direct change to how their government operates for the purpose of trying to improve the situation they are in.

 

TxDOT can manipulate financial reports to suit their whims, I guarantee you much of this money will just "get away from the reports" and they'll blame it on made-up costs and fees. Orange County did that here in Southern California in the 1990s and "suddenly" went bankrupt, and couldn't explain why (remember that Orange County is small, but one of the wealthiest counties in the country with a very generous tax base....they re-emerged from bankruptcy a couple of years later).

 

If Texas gets a few repaved roads, then good for them. But voters changing anything? Don't count on it.

[CaptCity 4,919]

To people that tell me they don't vote because it doesn't change anything (and I've heard many), I simply say 'if all the people who say that would vote, then something would change.' Not voting can not change anything if it's change people want. 

[iLoveMusic 66]

To people that tell me they don't vote because it doesn't change anything (and I've heard many), I simply say 'if all the people who say that would vote, then something would change.' Not voting can not change anything if it's change people want. 

 

I don't claim that not voting changes anything, I'm not fooling myself or anyone else. I've given up on my country and my fellow Americans. Also, the more people vote, then everybody's votes mathematically become even more pointless. Nothing changes just by adding more voters. Even if you use the highly implausible scenario where an additional number voters changed who was elected, it wouldn't matter since all of the possible electorates end up doing the same thing anyway, which is unhelpful.

 

I feel like, somewhere, there must exist a mathematical equation that shows all of this. Admittedly, however, I am saying this somewhat arbitrarily.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

 

To people that tell me they don't vote because it doesn't change anything (and I've heard many), I simply say 'if all the people who say that would vote, then something would change.' Not voting can not change anything if it's change people want. 

 

I don't claim that not voting changes anything, I'm not fooling myself or anyone else. I've given up on my country and my fellow Americans. Also, the more people vote, then everybody's votes mathematically become even more pointless. Nothing changes just by adding more voters. Even if you use the highly implausible scenario where an additional number voters changed who was elected, it wouldn't matter since all of the possible electorates end up doing the same thing anyway, which is unhelpful.

 

I feel like, somewhere, there must exist a mathematical equation that shows all of this. Admittedly, however, I am saying this somewhat arbitrarily.

 

If you've given up on America, you have only one vote left.  That is with your feet.  Get up a go somewhere in which you can believe.

[iLoveMusic 66]

 

 

To people that tell me they don't vote because it doesn't change anything (and I've heard many), I simply say 'if all the people who say that would vote, then something would change.' Not voting can not change anything if it's change people want. 

 

I don't claim that not voting changes anything, I'm not fooling myself or anyone else. I've given up on my country and my fellow Americans. Also, the more people vote, then everybody's votes mathematically become even more pointless. Nothing changes just by adding more voters. Even if you use the highly implausible scenario where an additional number voters changed who was elected, it wouldn't matter since all of the possible electorates end up doing the same thing anyway, which is unhelpful.

 

I feel like, somewhere, there must exist a mathematical equation that shows all of this. Admittedly, however, I am saying this somewhat arbitrarily.

 

If you've given up on America, you have only one vote left.  That is with your feet.  Get up a go somewhere in which you can believe.

 

But I love it here, despite my gripes with the average American consumerist mentality and its broken political system. My family is here, my friends are here, it's where I've always been and it's where I intend to stay. I find America's natural landscape to be especially beautiful, and there's so much I still want to see and explore. While my despair with my fellow countrymen has long passed the point to which I've given up on them, it hasn't reached such an extent to make me want to leave. It isn't unbearable to live here, at least to me. There's nothing for me anywhere else. You may not believe it, based on some of the things I've said - but I don't hate my country by any means.

 

I get the feeling that we're going to go full-circle on this, as I predict some of your potential responses to this would be along the lines of "then don't complain", "go make a difference", "you should move somewhere you are satisfied with the political climate", etc. And I've already addressed all of the above topics in this thread. 

[AcmeSigns 97]

Considering that Al Franken won his Minnesota Senatorial seat by a mere 312 votes, that tells me that your vote does, indeed, count. If 313 people who didn't vote, but also didn't want Al Franken as their Senator, had voted the outcome would have been different. And that was in state where 2,885,555 votes were cast in the senate race. 312 is an awful small percentage to have decided the outcome.

 

If the retort is along the lines of, '...they're all the same...', well, sadly then, there's no changing your opinion.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Don't lay out the facts.  His mind is already made up.

[iLoveMusic 66]

Considering that Al Franken won his Minnesota Senatorial seat by a mere 312 votes, that tells me that your vote does, indeed, count. If 313 people who didn't vote, but also didn't want Al Franken as their Senator, had voted the outcome would have been different. And that was in state where 2,885,555 votes were cast in the senate race. 312 is an awful small percentage to have decided the outcome.

 

If the retort is along the lines of, '...they're all the same...', well, sadly then, there's no changing your opinion.

 

 

Don't lay out the facts.  His mind is already made up.

 

Actually I didn't think it was worth commenting on, but if you're going to be that way - fine, let's dig into this.

 

No one's vote determined the outcome of the senate election. In fact, the odds of any one person's vote deciding or changing anything at all are extremely small, and that's also given the number of senate candidate choices. There actually is an equation that demonstrates this using the Bernnan-Lomasky model, but that would take me forever to match to the above scenario so I'm going to do this a different way. 

 

Let's say that the nearly 3 million voters who voted in this senate race had an exactly 50/50 chance of voting for either Al Franken or Mike McFadden. And that's also given the highly implausible premise that they are all voting fairly, without bias. 50/50 is the statistical equivalent of a coin toss, so let's use that. The chances of you breaking a tie between them are equal to the probability of 1.5 million of those 3 million (I rounded this up) coin tosses turning up heads. That's approximately 1 in 1,500. And those chances turn even more completely dismal if third-party candidates are involved, and voted for as well. Even that is a gross overestimate of your influence on the election turnout.

 

Now, change the chance of voters voting for Al Franken to 51 percent. You're chance of casting the tiebreaker vote in that election are now 1 in 5 to the 523rd power. You honestly have a better chance of winning the Powerball lottery jackpot 64 times in a row.

 

What's worth more than voting? The extra hour of sleep you can get instead. Simply not driving to the polls could save your life from a fatal auto wreck, which depending on where you live, is potentially more likely than your vote having any merit whatsoever.

 

A typical response to this might be something like, "Well, if everyone thought like that..." but that's just it, see - not everyone thinks like that. Millions of them continue to vote. Even when I was a kid and heard that response from adults talking, I couldn't find the logic behind it at all. But I was too small for me to be able to mount a sophisticated argument about it at the time. 

 

I'm not saying all of this to discourage you from voting, really. I don't go out of my way to present this information, nor do I try to convince voters why voting doesn't matter. But when they come to me or start going off about what's wrong with not voting, then boy have I got news for you! And I just covered the mathematics of why voting doesn't matter. You've only seen the tip of the iceberg of why and how voting doesn't change anything.

 

I give credit to a slate.com article for help with the coin toss scenario.

[Sabretooth78 808]

One qualification that does not seem to be made here regarding voting vs. not voting is whether or not you are educated on the issues.  If I'm not familiar with the issues surrounding the race and how they relate to the candidates, I certainly don't vote.  To do so is irresponsible.  You can argue that I am then being irresponsible in not knowing the issues (and you would be right), but at the same time I don't see how that makes me worse than the average voter.  Also consider that not all issues affect everybody.

 

Of course it's also instructive to be able to tell what an "issue" is.  For instance, Faux News' diet of "talking points" are generally 99.9% free of substance.  The same goes for their brothers on the other side of the spectrum (said spectrum contained wholly within one corner of the Nolan and Pournelle charts).

 

 

Canada does best all around when we have a minority government, which is, I believe, impossible in the U.S.

 

That seems to correlate well with the US when there is a "split" in power.  The mere arguments over the false differences in policy actually do seem to stall their progress somewhat.

 

The trouble is when one side eventually gets full control (doesn't matter which one) and things suddenly lurch downward in an orgy of destruction that looks like a greatest hits compilation of both sides' failed ideas during that span - and those that are unagreeable to the then-minority are never challenged once they eventually regain power.  Oh, they'll b*tch and moan about some of them, but never actually do anything about them.  Cases-in-point:  Roe v. Wade, Obamneycare, and the "War on Terrorism" (aka War on the American Populace).  republicans will never overturn the first two and democrats will never scale back the latter.  Why?  To do so would decrease the role of government in some aspect of peoples' lives - overturning Roe would devolve powers to the states, and overturning Romneybamacare or scaling back the WoT would undo a whole rat's nest of bureaucracy.  Not an acceptable outcome among the bunch.

 

The problem is that the US is generally a society that pays no attention to events or ideas outside of its borders. Americans tend to be very narrow-minded. There is a set box of ideas that people simply do not think outside of.

 

In terms of illusion of choice, this itself is another consequence of having only two parties of significance and having large numbers of people who will always vote for the same one no matter what. And this is where you get the whole red state/blue state drama. I, for example, can comfortably say that a Democrat is going to win any major election where I live because it's a blue area in a blue state and that's just how it is. So in this sense my vote doesn't matter because there isn't any actual competition. The winner is decided in the primary (if there is one), not in the general election.

 

Back around the 2004 elections when I was living in New Hampshire, there was a big stink being raised because NH election law does not (at least did not, I haven't followed where it ended up) allow the option for a "straight ticket" right on the ballot.  People who walk into a polling place and automatically just select a straight ticket option should be absolved of all future voting rights and duties IMHO.  The height of sloth.

 

I like what you do; I've done that in the past and probably will continue to do so.  As for primaries; I do not vote and will never as I see them as a party function (something I do not believe in) that should not be sanctioned with taxpayer funds.  In fact, seeing as I am a registered "no affiliation" - which apparently characterizes me as some hopelessly undecided dumb*ss judging by the amount of marketing I receive - I don't think I'm even allowed to vote in them.  I'm not sure if NYS has open primaries; in fact I don't care either way.

 

As I remember, NH's are closed.  Come to think of it, that was actually the last time I ever registered with a party (republican) and the only time I ever voted in a primary - in order to support a grassroots campaign to pull the party's support for a particularly vile governor.  That effort failed (as to be expected) but he did lose the general election, being the first single-term governor in that state in over 100 years to seek a 2nd term and not get it.  Haha, jerk!  His successor lasted 4 or 5 terms, I believe, as a very successful independent moderate.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Municipal elections in Ontario today.  Mid-terms coming up in the U.S.  One of the things I like about Ontario municipal elections is that parties are not allowed.

[Duke87 1,070]

There is more to democracy than just voting. There's a reason why we have freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to petition the government, and freedom to peacefully assemble. All of these are tools which anyone who cares to can use to make a difference. You may only have one vote but using these tools you might influence the votes of others, or influence the decisions of your representatives.

 

 

As for voting with your feet, I understand that it is a powerful tool, and yet I find the frequency with which it is used concerning since it seems to me that in the big picture it makes things worse, not better. When a lot of people vote with their feet, it dehomogenizes the country. If everyone who doesn't like the local politics leaves, soon the people remaining will find themselves with no local opposition and will be able to elect politicians who are more and more extreme in their views. Meanwhile the people who've left will have elected their own politicians on the opposite extreme wherever they went to. These politicians will have to share space in Washington. The inevitable result then is that we end up with representatives who are more and more bent on fighting each other and less and less willing to work together, which in turn hampers the ability of the government to function.

 

If you ask me, political diversity is important for a healthy democracy. It's not good for people to be surrounded only by others who think alike. It breeds narrowmindedness.

[Compdude787 916]

There is more to democracy than just voting. There's a reason why we have freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to petition the government, and freedom to peacefully assemble. All of these are tools which anyone who cares to can use to make a difference. You may only have one vote but using these tools you might influence the votes of others, or influence the decisions of your representatives.

 

 

As for voting with your feet, I understand that it is a powerful tool, and yet I find the frequency with which it is used concerning since it seems to me that in the big picture it makes things worse, not better. When a lot of people vote with their feet, it dehomogenizes the country. If everyone who doesn't like the local politics leaves, soon the people remaining will find themselves with no local opposition and will be able to elect politicians who are more and more extreme in their views. Meanwhile the people who've left will have elected their own politicians on the opposite extreme wherever they went to. These politicians will have to share space in Washington. The inevitable result then is that we end up with representatives who are more and more bent on fighting each other and less and less willing to work together, which in turn hampers the ability of the government to function.

 

If you ask me, political diversity is important for a healthy democracy. It's not good for people to be surrounded only by others who think alike. It breeds narrowmindedness.

I agree a lot with what you are saying. Participating in a democratic society is something we should be grateful to enjoy, and never something to be taken for granted. In a way, there are really four branches of government, not just three. The fourth branch is the people, who ultimately have the final say in what goes on in the three other branches with their vote. We ought to use our desire to remain free to counteract the government's desire for power.

And political diversity is important, because when you have a lot of people just on one side of the political spectrum, then you have the minority who has the differing view feel alienated, and afraid to speak out. This is what has happened in Seattle, and the lack of diverse political ideas means that you get the same crappy mayors over and over again.

When it comes to not voting, I agree that if you feel like it's a "pick your poison" kind of election where you dislike both candidates running for office and cannot bring yourself to vote for either one of them. This is how I felt in the mayoral election and I will admit that I didn't vote for either of the mayoral candidates last year. Sorry for my hypocrisy, iLoveMusic, but now that I've taken a step back from this debate and thought about my own past experiences, it's easier to sympathize with you.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Op. Ed. Piece by BBC on Mid-Term Elections.

 

Unless someone can contradict this, it shows that unlimited funding can create a sort of 'family compact' type of government.