Shutdown!

[Cyborg Girl]

@FZ, I have to disagree with that too... Because wingnuts *always* vote.

[pumpkinpi]

I think the expression "if you don't vote you can't complain about the results" is really a generalized statement. The reality is that voting by itself is only part of the equation. If you want things to improve or change then you have to participate in the process.

Goddamit. You mean I not only have to vote but I have to know who and what I'm voting for? That's insane. Who thought up this madness? We had a perfectly good dictatorial monarchy going.

Technically not voting is a taking part in the process by saying that you reject all of them and their corruption.
As an example, if no member of the public showed up to vote, imagine the fear that would hit the politicians.
The more people that vote the more they know they have the public under their spell.
Deprive them of that power. Let them wonder wtf is about to happen when no one turns up on the day other than them and their lackies.
That is the day the public shows that they are the ones with power and not the other way around.
Remember, a lack of vote is a vote of no confidence and that can make dramatic changes.

Jose Saramago wrote a book about this, "Seeing." One election day, everyone cast blank ballots. The government struggles to figure out why.

He's a Portuguese writer who often writes with the theme of "what if this happened...." and how a community deals with it. For example, in the book Blindness, which was made into a movie, most of a city's citizens go blind within a couple of days. How do the sighted people deal with it? Read it if you want to find out....

Another example is "Death With Interruptions." In one city, "death" decided to take a holiday, so no one died over the period of about a month. Even those with terminal cancer, who had heart attacks, or any other accidents that would be fatal. You can imagine the state these should-be-dead people would be in! If they went across the city borders, they would die.

He writes fascinating books. Here is a description of his writing style. "Saramago's experimental style often features long sentences, at times more than a page long. He used periods sparingly, choosing instead a loose flow of clauses joined by commas. Many of his paragraphs extend for pages without pausing for dialogue, (which Saramago chooses not to delimit by quotation marks); when the speaker changes, Saramago capitalizes the first letter of the new speaker's clause. His works often refer to his other works. In his novel Blindness, Saramago completely abandons the use of proper nouns, instead referring to characters simply by some unique characteristic, an example of his style reflecting the recurring themes of identity and meaning found throughout his work." Also, they are usually generic cities without names, and usually characters don't have names either.

[SciFiFisher]

I think the expression "if you don't vote you can't complain about the results" is really a generalized statement. The reality is that voting by itself is only part of the equation. If you want things to improve or change then you have to participate in the process.

Goddamit. You mean I not only have to vote but I have to know who and what I'm voting for? That's insane. Who thought up this madness? We had a perfectly good dictatorial monarchy going.

Technically not voting is a taking part in the process by saying that you reject all of them and their corruption.
As an example, if no member of the public showed up to vote, imagine the fear that would hit the politicians.
The more people that vote the more they know they have the public under their spell.
Deprive them of that power. Let them wonder wtf is about to happen when no one turns up on the day other than them and their lackies.
That is the day the public shows that they are the ones with power and not the other way around.
Remember, a lack of vote is a vote of no confidence and that can make dramatic changes.

The problem in this country is that if no one shows up to vote it's interpreted as a mandate from the few that do. In essence you get the Tea Party of 2010 thinking that the whole famn damily wants what they want. And it's now 2014 and they still can't believe that the majority of the people really didn't want them to go to Washington DC and STOP the gubermint from doing business as usual.

[Sigma_Orionis]

That's exactly what happened in 2005 on the Legislative Elections here. The opposition thought they were making a statement by boycotting the elections. All they got for their trouble was giving Chavez & Co. absolute control of the National Assembly.

[geonuc]

Jose Saramago wrote a book about this, "Seeing." One election day, everyone cast blank ballots. The government struggles to figure out why.

He's a Portuguese writer who often writes with the theme of "what if this happened...." and how a community deals with it. For example, in the book Blindness, which was made into a movie, most of a city's citizens go blind within a couple of days. How do the sighted people deal with it? Read it if you want to find out....

Another example is "Death With Interruptions." In one city, "death" decided to take a holiday, so no one died over the period of about a month. Even those with terminal cancer, who had heart attacks, or any other accidents that would be fatal. You can imagine the state these should-be-dead people would be in! If they went across the city borders, they would die.

He writes fascinating books. Here is a description of his writing style. "Saramago's experimental style often features long sentences, at times more than a page long. He used periods sparingly, choosing instead a loose flow of clauses joined by commas. Many of his paragraphs extend for pages without pausing for dialogue, (which Saramago chooses not to delimit by quotation marks); when the speaker changes, Saramago capitalizes the first letter of the new speaker's clause. His works often refer to his other works. In his novel Blindness, Saramago completely abandons the use of proper nouns, instead referring to characters simply by some unique characteristic, an example of his style reflecting the recurring themes of identity and meaning found throughout his work." Also, they are usually generic cities without names, and usually characters don't have names either.

Interesting. I must read him.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Technically not voting is a taking part in the process by saying that you reject all of them and their corruption.

Only if that's why you do it. It needs to be intentional. It's why I think spoiling your ballot is a better option.

[FZR1KG]

That's exactly what happened in 2005 on the Legislative Elections here. The opposition thought they were making a statement by boycotting the elections. All they got for their trouble was giving Chavez & Co. absolute control of the National Assembly.

The same principle doesn't apply for political representation. It was pretty dumb of them to think it would.

[FZR1KG]

Technically not voting is a taking part in the process by saying that you reject all of them and their corruption.

Only if that's why you do it. It needs to be intentional. It's why I think spoiling your ballot is a better option.

In Australia not voting is illegal.
Spoiling your vote is not.
The clear message in Oz if no one turned up is we'd rather go to prison than vote for you fuckers.

Your mileage may vary in a voluntary voting system. It would all depend on the media and how many failed to show.

[Sigma_Orionis]

The same principle doesn't apply for political representation. It was pretty dumb of them to think it would.

Wanna bet how dumb they can be?

[code monkey]

cm, I really have to disagree. When voting becomes a matter of chosing the lesser evil, everyone has a right to complain.

(In a way, I think some of the people who don't vote have more right to complain. They've been shown that their ideas don't matter. They can't vote for their ideas because their ideas are not represented, no matter how good those ideas are. That's pretty complaint worthy IMO.)

more right to complain? how have they been shown that their ideas don't matter? just what have they been doing to get those ideas out there? have they run for office? worked on the campaign of someone whose ideas they favored? voted in primaries? attended/spoken at town meetings?

given the number of issues in any race, it's not too likely that the perfect candidate(a candidate with whom one is in total agreement)is running so one must compromise. decide which are the most important and vote accordingly.

but a person who just sits back and gripes? sorry, that person's done nothing to persuade others that his ideas are good and i'd just as soon not hear the complaining.

[SciFi Chick]

more right to complain? how have they been shown that their ideas don't matter? just what have they been doing to get those ideas out there? have they run for office? worked on the campaign of someone whose ideas they favored? voted in primaries? attended/spoken at town meetings?

Some of us don't have the resources to do those things. We're trying to survive.

but a person who just sits back and gripes? sorry, that person's done nothing to persuade others that his ideas are good and i'd just as soon not hear the complaining.

Just because I don't believe going out to vote is the panacea of all that is wrong with this country does not mean all I'm doing is sitting back and griping.

[brite]

We're trying to survive.

We are all trying to survive. Please don't think I'm trying to downgrade what you are saying. But you aren't going to agree with everything that someone says all the time. You aren't going to agree with someone's political position 24/7/365, either. Nor should you! But I manage in my copious free time to work on campaigns, or speak my mind...
[quote}
Just because I don't believe going out to vote is the panacea of all that is wrong with this country does not mean all I'm doing is sitting back and griping.[/quote]
Then you get what you pay for....

[SciFi Chick]

We're trying to survive.

We are all trying to survive. Please don't think I'm trying to downgrade what you are saying. But you aren't going to agree with everything that someone says all the time. You aren't going to agree with someone's political position 24/7/365, either. Nor should you! But I manage in my copious free time to work on campaigns, or speak my mind...

I suppose I could go through the long list of why I can't do this, but it's clear that you and CM have made up your minds and nothing anyone says will change them. But I find it surprising since both of you are compassionate people who usually understand that things aren't always clear cut black and white.

Y'all just go on and blame me for the ills of this country. I'm leaving however, so you'll have to make all the other so-called apathetic people your scape goats.

I know that was snarky, but for the record, I've been voting even though I don't believe it's working. But apparently, I'm not even allowed to say that. And now, it seems I shouldn't be complaining at all because I'm not campaigning. I suppose if I was campaigning, I wouldn't be allowed to complain because I'm not actually a politician. Basically, I should just shut the fuck up and take the responsibility for this country going to hell.

Well, I'm not going to do that, because I sincerely disagree with both of you. I sincerely believe that large corporations are running this country and the deck is stacked against us, and voting is not going to make one damn bit of difference.

[FZR1KG]

Lets look at it this way by a thought experiment.
Two possible extreme versions exist if a non voter went back and voted in every election:
1) They vote for the party that gets in every time.
2) They vote for the party that doesn't get in every time.

I'm assuming that because they are voting they now have the right to complain, even though in (1) they always got who they voted for and (2) they never got who they voted for.
So basically what is being said is it makes no difference who gets in, you only have the right to complain if you voted regardless if your vote was for people who got in or people who didn't.

Now some people say that you don't have the right to complain if you voted for the party that got in but you do if you voted for the party that didn't get in.
That kind of makes more sense but it also throws the ills of the political party back on the voter by virtue that if you voted them in then you are responsible for their actions.

So no where in here can I see any point in me voting. If I vote and the the party gets in I get blamed for anything they do. If I voted for the opposite party I can then complain and blame the people that voted for the party that got in. In either case its not constructive and all it serves is a public divide.
Don't believe me?
Well, Democrat campaigners in our town didn't want to eat at our restaurant because they didn't want to spoil our business by having our restaurant associated with the Democratic party in a heavily republican town. The republican campaigners didn't want to eat there because they didn't want to provide legitimacy to a furriner restaurant and they preferred to support long established conservative places instead. Don't forget we served, "Al Queda" food. That's an actual quote from a local.
That's what politics does to people. It divides them up and screws everyone around.

Now we could have gotten more business by being more politically active and had one or the other side frequent our place.
Now our totally neutral restaurant is a political machine in order to get business.
This is what happens when people take voting so seriously.
Everything becomes politicised, even things you wouldn't expect.

So why would I want to support a system that does that and why would I want a system that divides the country when I'm all for uniting it.
I wanted to have both republicans and Democrats eat at our place because politics does not matter and we have other things in common.
What we got for it was less support and acceptance.

Likewise with the churches. If we joined a local church we'd get more business. That's what everyone else does in this town.
Because we aren't religious we lose that market as well.
Is anyone going to suggest that we should now convert to one form of Christianity in order to get more clients from that sector?
I refuse to do that because of principle.
So why do I have to support one political party over another just so I can gain something by using them?
nope, won't do that either.

There have been cases where we have had Republicans and Democrats in our place at the same time.
You can feel the tension. Neither group feels comfortable with the other even being there.
There's politics in a redneck town for you.
Likewise when two different church groups came in.

I won't support such a system that divides people and provide it legitimacy nor will I be made to feel guilty for not being a part of a system that does little more than divide the country's populations and turn them against each other.
Nope. Not me. Not this little black duck.

[brite]

It's voter apathy that has gotten us to where we're at. Is that all your fault? No, and I have never said that it was. I have said that it was up to you (and to all of us) to be contentious and informed voters. And in this age of the internet... that's not all that hard or time consuming to do. You can look up your Congress Critter's congressional voting record as easily as you make a cup of tea. You can read what is going on in the world, as easily as sitting down to your computer. That's really all it takes. Yet you make it seem as if this takes more time and effort than it takes to get a degree.

Corporations are people too. So says the Supreme Court. What that actually means is the money is speech. The more money you have, the more freedom of speech you have. And we allowed that to happen with our apathy. We didn't care to vote in elections, we didn't care to check up on what our Congress Critters were doing, we weren't watching, as a nation, what our government was doing. And now, as a nation, we have the government that we deserve.

But even more importantly, it is that politics are local. What has you Congress Critter done for the people "back home"? The people that he is supposed to represent directly? That is what the House of Representatives is supposed to do. Represent US! Not the corporations, not some bone headed off the wall group like the Tea Party, and not some twit like Grover Norquist. But we, the people. And if they are not doing that, then they deserve to be voted out.

No one is asking you to work on a campaign, or anything else. I am asking you to be informed. To stay informed. To not vote blind. To find out what the guy in office has done for you lately, and then find out what the people who are running against him are for. And then make the most informed decision that you can, based on that. To take 10-15 minutes out of your day and find out not only what the people who represent you believe and how they vote, but, maybe, find out what YOU really believe (and you may end up changing your vote).

It's a thought. That and $2.00 will get me a cup of coffee anywhere...

[FZR1KG]

Brite, unfortunately the corporations in this country were well in place and established manipulating both parties well before you could vote and even well before women, black people etc as groups could vote.
It's my sincere belief that the two parties are not influenced by voters but by lobbyists and business interests.
Voting at this point is more about distracting the average person with regard to the real issues in the country and provide a false sense of legitimacy to the average person so they feel they have a part in running the country and can thus blame themselves or other voters if things are going to shit.

As an example, people have been realising just how bad lobbying is. With the internet and increasing awareness people don't want lobbying and are unhappy about its influence in politics. Note that no real effort has been made to get rid of lobbying yet the lobbying movement has already started on a different path.
One of more confusion and less transparency. No change has effectively happened other than it appears there is less industry influence to the average person.
More smoke and mirrors. Some people will claim victory that they have succeeded in reducing lobbying. I'm sure in the future when all major companies migrate to new tactics there will be no need at all for lobbyists and then they will pass new legislation effectively removing lobbying from your political system. Much joy in the population will be seen yet nothing has effectively changed other than it will now be done in secret instead of openly.

But mostly I want to point out something here.
Notice the stress levels of people going up in this thread just because we have different opinions.
Yet we all actually like having different opinions. We embrace these differences normally.
here however its like a line in the sand.
If you vote, you have a certain level of morals. If you don't, well, you don't.
Not voting is considered irresponsible etc.
No where will you find a person that says, hey, it's your right not to vote and you are exercising that right, good for you.
It's a taboo and people will actively try to change a non voter to a voter and it can be a real heated debate at times.
The one thing to remember though is this, "not voting" is an idea in someones mind. It's in mine.

Now, what was that saying about the suppression of ideas in a free society?
Let's have a closer look:

In Australia the idea not to vote is made illegal. The suppression of an idea that is considered so extreme that it is made illegal.
In the USA the idea of not voting is considered unpatriotic.

There is a reason for this. You can take the blue pill or the red pill.

[brite]

Forget it... I give up. Doesn't matter anyway. Y'all are leaving the country. Won't matter. You are right. We are

DOOMED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DOOMED!!!!!!!!!!!!! I TELL YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SciFi Chick]

Forget it... I give up. Doesn't matter anyway. Y'all are leaving the country. Won't matter. You are right. We are

DOOMED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DOOMED!!!!!!!!!!!!! I TELL YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You know I love you I hope. I don't know that you're doomed. I just don't think voting in the two party system that we currently have will stop the doomnation so to speak. And please believe me when I say I really hope I'm wrong. I want to be eighty years old and ready to smack you upside the head because of the constant "I told you so's".

[FZR1KG]

Forget it... I give up. Doesn't matter anyway. Y'all are leaving the country. Won't matter. You are right. We are

DOOMED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DOOMED!!!!!!!!!!!!! I TELL YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

rofl

Well technically we're not right, but, we're not wrong either.

[Loresinger]

I haven't posted much lately but I'll chime in here. I confess I have struggled in recent years. I feel like voting doesn't matter for shit. Money buys positions (if you look at what is happening in NY right now you'll see my point). The whole political scheme needs to change. You want to run for office - here's your budget: anything over that goes back to the nation for schools and roads etc. Think about the BILLIONS of dollars spent on every election but none of that fosters anything but some guy or gal who will live off a title for the rest of their lives (pension, medical insurance, etc). It is obscene, wrong and until people are willing to stand up and say "no more" we will be on the crap end of it.

[pumpkinpi]

Let's put voting in its complete context. Voting at your local level can make a difference so be sure to do it there. When sheeple show up for only the major elections and vote for their party w/o any serious consideration, and completely ignore their state legislature, city council, local judges, and school board, they are doing themselves a true disservice. Even though they cast a ballot, it really didn't make a difference.

[FZR1KG]

I agree with you pumpkin. At the lower levels things can be changed. As you go higher that diminishes rapidly.

[The Supreme Canuck]

I dunno... seems to me that voting and having nearly no impact at all is better than not voting and having no impact whatsoever...

[FZR1KG]

300 million slaves in a cage voting on represents them when talking with the master is not freedom nor is it democracy.
300 million slaves voting on if the they should recognise gay marriage is not freedom either.
We're all slaves. Born into slavery for many generations.
So long that we've forgotten that we are slaves and have no clue on what it's like to be free.
Caged by walls of debt that keep us committed to working rather than revolting with the promise that one day we will be debt free.
Much like a mouse in a wheel.

Money is where the power is.
That's what influences the world and politics.
If you owe a debt and your creditor asks you to pay up or do as they say and your debt will be extended, which do you do?

If democracy is so effective at following the peoples will, then explain this: Almost every country in the world is in debt, those that aren't don't balance anywhere near the figure of those who are because they are both so few and aren't that rich.

Surely somewhere along the history of voting the public would vote measures to reduce their obligations and reduce their debt?
Nope. Apparently every democracy in the world (bar one) votes to stay in debt and continue the cycle. The one exception can do so because it has huge oil reserves and everyone else is happy to purchase oil because it makes them more efficient at creating wealth so they get a pat on the back for being good boys and girls by the master.

Now ask who are we in all in debt to?

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ublic_debt

The 8 countries that aren't in debt: Norway, Libiya, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Kazakhstan, Lesotho, Liberia.
The last two being the only two in that list that aren't major oil producers and exporters and they are also pretty poor states.

Follow the money.

[Sigma_Orionis]

Oh yeah, the TP is definitely going to fight this one....

it gets even better