Have this damnable thought ever slipped through your mind that

[wuliheron]

That's one view. Maybe it's correct. The solution, imho, is to vote for candidates other than Republicans and Democrats. Maybe those votes will count for something.

I beg to differ. Since OWS began screaming rape at the top of their lungs there's been a huge turnaround with 60% of the country now believing the government should create policies to redistribute the wealth, 1/3 of OWS now supporting the Tea Party and vice versa, republican presidential candidates calling each other greedy pigs, and now Obama pushing for corporate tax reform. When your vote just doesn't count for much yelling rape at the top of your lungs can and historically has gotten results.

 

[Hobin]

from a philosophical standpoint i find nothing more abhorrent than the suppression of the individual in favor of the whole, there is a reason why the U.S is a republic. it all depends on whether you are a proponent of negative liberty or positive liberty i suppose. i'd prefer an enlightened despot such as pisistratus as opposed to a government with pure democracy.

This has little to do with what my reaction to your previous post. You stated that a direct democracy is actually one of the worst kinds of government. If we also assume that you believe the above (losing individual liberty in favor of the whole), then you are mistaken in that belief. Direct democracy, while it has many flaws and even though I prefer a more indirect form of government, is actually not very restrictive. Compared to most other kinds of government, 50+% approval before passing a law is incredibly high. In other words, in the worst case scenario (the rest of the population under total suppression) at least 50+% have enormous individual liberty.

Also, you might want to rethink your rather extreme stance of finding nothing more abhorrent than the suppression of the individual in favor of the whole. Murder is illegal for exactly this 'favor of the whole'-reason. Individual freedom is extremely important, I very much agree, but there certainly are (and should be!) limits to this freedom.

 

[eggshell]

This has little to do with what my reaction to your previous post. You stated that a direct democracy is actually one of the worst kinds of government. If we also assume that you believe the above (losing individual liberty in favor of the whole), then you are mistaken in that belief. Direct democracy, while it has many flaws and even though I prefer a more indirect form of government, is actually not very restrictive. Compared to most other kinds of government, 50+% approval before passing a law is incredibly high. In other words, in the worst case scenario (the rest of the population under total suppression) at least 50+% have enormous individual liberty.

Also, you might want to rethink your rather extreme stance of finding nothing more abhorrent than the suppression of the individual in favor of the whole. Murder is illegal for exactly this 'favor of the whole'-reason. Individual freedom is extremely important, I very much agree, but there certainly are (and should be!) limits to this freedom.

the majority of people are retarded, i don't trust them to have such a large role in determining the policies of the nation i live in, which is why i favor an indirect form of representation.

your last part of the post shows that you didn't comprehend mine, i mentioned a republic -- I'm not going to explain to you the implications of this and its effect on the freedom of individuals.

 

[ThomasT]

I beg to differ.

With what?

 

[wuliheron]

With what?

I beg to differ that the solution is to vote for a third party. If people want a third party they would already be voting for a third party and in the US at least we have a two party system that discourages third parties.

Most people I know have some pretty weird ideas about what a democracy is. A lynch mob, for example, is not a democracy. Majority rule is not a democracy. The ancient Athenian motto they would shout before speaking to the voters was, "Strike if you must, but hear me first!" Lynch mobs don't bother to listen if they don't want to.

No, what makes a democracy are specific rights given people and minorities to ensure the peace. The right to vote is just one of those and the right to protest is another. When your vote becomes more or less meaningless for whatever reason its time to start protesting. When the majority or a minority starts dumping on you big time and you can't stop them, its time to start protesting. Otherwise they might actually start to think you like it.

Just a thought.

 

[Galteeth]

I beg to differ that the solution is to vote for a third party. If people want a third party they would already be voting for a third party and in the US at least we have a two party system that discourages third parties.

Most people I know have some pretty weird ideas about what a democracy is. A lynch mob, for example, is not a democracy. Majority rule is not a democracy. The ancient Athenian motto they would shout before speaking to the voters was, "Strike if you must, but hear me first!" Lynch mobs don't bother to listen if they don't want to.

No, what makes a democracy are specific rights given people and minorities to ensure the peace. The right to vote is just one of those and the right to protest is another. When your vote becomes more or less meaningless for whatever reason its time to start protesting. When the majority or a minority starts dumping on you big time and you can't stop them, its time to start protesting. Otherwise they might actually start to think you like it.

Just a thought.

You are referring to a "liberal democracy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_types_of_democracy#Types_of_democracy

 

[wuliheron]

You are referring to a "liberal democracy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_types_of_democracy#Types_of_democracy

No, I'm referring to democracy in general:

"Democracy is an egalitarian form of government in which all the citizens of a nation together determine public policy, the laws and the actions of their state, requiring that all citizens (meeting certain qualifications) have an equal opportunity to express their opinion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

If don't have the right to express your opinion voting is irrelevant.

 

[Galteeth]

No, I'm referring to democracy in general:

"Democracy is an egalitarian form of government in which all the citizens of a nation together determine public policy, the laws and the actions of their state, requiring that all citizens (meeting certain qualifications) have an equal opportunity to express their opinion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

If don't have the right to express your opinion voting is irrelevant.

Well, that's not literally true.

 

[wuliheron]

Well, that's not literally true.

So now you want to debate with the encyclopedia? Go for it dude. They have their own bulletin board and I'm sure they'll get a laugh out of the idea that you can have a democracy where people are not allowed to express themselves.

 

[ThomasT]

I beg to differ that the solution is to vote for a third party.

I think that if the ~80M people who don't bother to vote (assuming that a majority of them don't vote because they think their vote won't matter) voted for candidates other than Republicans and Democrats, then maybe some positive changes regarding the way government and politics and the financial sector and corporate America works might happen.

If they continue to not vote and just do a protest or a blog once in a while, then I don't think that's likely to bring about any changes in the status quo.

Not voting would seem to be an expression of not wanting or caring about any significant changes in the status quo.

Anyway, wrt the OP, I think we can say for sure that votes that aren't made definitely don't count.

 

[Hobin]

the majority of people are retarded

This is obviously not true, and explains quite a lot.

 

[wuliheron]

I think that if the ~80M people who don't bother to vote (assuming that a majority of them don't vote because they think their vote won't matter) voted for candidates other than Republicans and Democrats, then maybe some positive changes regarding the way government and politics and the financial sector and corporate America works might happen.

If they continue to not vote and just do a protest or a blog once in a while, then I don't think that's likely to bring about any changes in the status quo.

Not voting would seem to be an expression of not wanting or caring about any significant changes in the status quo.

Anyway, wrt the OP, I think we can say for sure that votes that aren't made definitely don't count.

LOL, just because they don't vote doesn't mean they care about the results much less that they are unhappy with them or would vote for a third party. All it means is they don't vote for whatever reason. Some are even amoral anarchists who abstain from voting because they don't believe in voting! And, of course, the group that votes the least are the youngest, while those who vote the most are the oldest and that's the way it has always been. Even in countries where voting is compulsory turnout is only about 7-16% higher for national elections suggesting your third party fantasy is about as likely as a snowball in hell even if everyone did turnout.

 

[Char. Limit]

This is obviously not true, and explains quite a lot.

Half the world has below average intelligence, though.

 

[Hobin]

Half the world has below average intelligence, though.

*chuckles* There you do have a point.

 

[edward]

Half the world has below average intelligence, though.

I started thinking about that when I noticed what The History Channel and the Discovery Channel had morphed into.

 

[CAC1001]

Votes do count though, the Iowa election between Rick Santorum and Romney showed that, where it was veeerry close. At first Romney finished eight votes ahead, then Santorum finished 34 votes ahead it turned out later on.

I started thinking about that when I noticed what The History Channel and the Discovery Channel had morphed into.

And The Learning Channel (now "TLC")

 

[wuliheron]

Votes do count though, the Iowa election between Rick Santorum and Romney showed that, where it was veeerry close. At first Romney finished eight votes ahead, then Santorum finished 34 votes ahead it turned out later on.

And The Learning Channel (now "TLC")

They had a low turnout with only 5.4% of republicans voting in the election. All of which suggests even republicans couldn't decide which candidate was the lesser of many evils and did not care who won.

Oh, and cable channels have gone down hill in part due to the cable companies pressuring them to lower their prices.

 

[CAC1001]

Oh, and cable channels have gone down hill in part due to the cable companies pressuring them to lower their prices.

I think also the popularity of reality television.

 

[wuliheron]

I think also the popularity of reality television.

These days Netflix is putting the screws to cable, however, last year video games made more money then all the Hollywood movies combined and are undeniably the fastest growing sector of the entertainment industry today. Popular series like Call of Duty cost 40-50 million dollars to produce and make over a billion dollars. The next generation consoles will be capable of cinematic quality graphics similar to movies like Avatar and some photo-realistic effects, and plans are already in the works to produce the first video game that uses the exact same graphics as a full length feature film to be released at the same time. The most expensive video game to date, the latest Star Wars, cost an estimated 150-200 million dollars to produce and not twenty years ago the original Doom cost 200k. However, part of the attraction of the video game industry over live movies is that just about every expense can come down dramatically as the technology becomes more automated.

 

[Alex_Sanders]

Votes do count though, the Iowa election between Rick Santorum and Romney showed that, where it was veeerry close. At first Romney finished eight votes ahead, then Santorum finished 34 votes ahead it turned out later on.



And The Learning Channel (now "TLC")

Oh yea love that channel. Learned a lot from it, like parenting, J&K+8, one thing I learned, DO NOT F--KING GIVE BIRTH TO ONE KID, LET ALONE 8.

Con meh gi cher pop corn!

 

[skippy1729]

your vote... might not count?

Most of the votes I have ever cast didn't matter. If you live in Utah, New York, Alabama, California or a host of other states, your vote for president will never count. The closest my vote ever came to counting was when I lived in Florida in 2000 (I voted for Bush). Our next president will be selected by a small number of people in a handfull of states (and maybe the supreme court).

Skippy

 

[mheslep]

Congress has an all time low approval rating with the overwhelming number of Americans disapproving of the job they're doing, yet only 10% of house seats have changed parties in the last ten years...

10% over five elections? It's quite a bit higher. In 2010 alone the swing was 63 seats (14%), and that's net, with 69 seats actually changing parties.

 

[Galteeth]

Most of the votes I have ever cast didn't matter. If you live in Utah, New York, Alabama, California or a host of other states, your vote for president will never count. The closest my vote ever came to counting was when I lived in Florida in 2000 (I voted for Bush). Our next president will be selected by a small number of people in a handfull of states (and maybe the supreme court).

Skippy

Well, that's not exactly true. It's true individually, but by that reasoning, the only time a vote counts is if it's the single deciding vote, which never happens. Voting is a collective of individual decisions.

 

[wuliheron]

10% over five elections? It's quite a bit higher. In 2010 alone the swing was 63 seats (14%), and that's net, with 69 seats actually changing parties.

You're correct, I was referring to the ten years prior to 2010. Here is a chart showing the history of congress' turnover rate from the Cato Institute:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/images/v14n3-fig1.gif

 

[ThomasT]

No matter what the rate of replacement is, it's, imho, too low. And I attribute this in large part to the absence of term limits. There are people who have been in Congress for 20 + years, and I think that this contributes to the perception (and, in a sense, the reality) that our individual votes don't matter much.

But, how are we going to get a congress that votes for term limits if we keep voting for, and electing, pretty much only Democrats and Republicans? Well, imho, we aren't. Thus, the suggestion that people stop voting for Democrats and Republicans -- if they want any sort of significant change in the status quo that is.

It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with third party movements. Although, imho, a third party would be a good thing. It just has to do with NOT voting for status quo, ie., major party, candidates.