To vote, or not to vote... that is question

[Duemellon]

If you've made a choice and decided to vote for it, regardless of whether or not I disagree for one reason or another with your reasons for pursuing it, at least you're doing something about the process.Moved this to a different thread as the thread it was in was about military funeral protests & how best to deal with the insensitivity, pulbicity opportunism, & harassment in a "freedom of speech & freedom to gather" kind've society.

So, the big thing that it was coming to was an habitual voter began deridiing those who made the choice not to vote.

This thread is actually started just for the debate. There's no hiding behind a news article or need to hijack it to get into a debate. We'll just start there.

[markalot]

If you have honestly looked at ALL the candidates and all the issues and can't stomach support for any candidate or decide on any issue then I would begrudgingly support a decision not to vote.

I don't believe this ever happens. I think people give up, walk away, then bitch.

For president, if you don't like any candidates then don't vote. But if you can deal with one candidate in order to block another from getting elected then why not vote for him/her?

If you decide not to vote for president but there's also an amendment to the constitution denying a right to someone then why not vote against it?

To vote means a lot more than one candidate or one issue.

[Shlep]

So, the big thing that it was coming to was an habitual voter began deridiing those who made the choice not to vote.

"Habitual voter"? Jeez, Due...you've taken voting (that thing that decides who is going to run the country, considered by some folks though not necessarily me to be a civic duty, and which people have died and risked death for the right to do in this country) and made it sound like some pathological psychiatric disorder.

"Shlep, it appears you're a habitual voter. I'm gonna write you a scrip for a 90-day supply of Xanax and recommend you stay away from C-SPAN as much as possible."

Anyway, my "derision" was prompted by you making a sweeping generalization about "conservative/traditional thinkers" such as myself clinging to antiquated notions such as thinking voting can actually determine who holds elected office while also being in favor of shooting people who don't vote, all because I made what I thought was a fairly innocuous comment about a section of a post you made that I said appeared to me like it was written while you were stoned but which you've decided to react to as though I said something about your mom.

[Duemellon]

Various points for those who feel non-voters are poor citizens & their counter arguments.

People died to preserve your right to vote
That was their choice. I appreciate the option to vote, but it's also a choice. In other places people died for the removal of the right to vote, should those individuals living in their legacy defend their lack of right to vote?

Absurdist argument.

If you didn't vote, you don't have a right to complain
Strange enough, there's the freedom of speech that ensures just the opposite. I have the right to complain about whatever I want & your attempt to declare my rights dead is strange indeed.

People who don't vote aren't taking advantage of the most effective tool to support change or maintaining the current course
Contemporarily speaking the most rapid & radical changes in our society took place through violence (or non-violence), economic pressure, or pop culture, not politicians.

The changes proposed by the individual candidates &/r the 2 parties involved do not represent my interest in what should be changed or represent such a limited amount of my desires for this country that they would not represent my interests in any meaningful manner.

It is a winner-take all democracy, where, regardless of how close the race, if the winner doesn't agree with the 2nd-highest voting populations' desire for change/stability they do not feel compelled to represent those who did not vote for them. Meaning: If they are not the constituents they feel no compuction to represent their interests or concerns. This means an elected person could've won by a slight margin of only 0.5% and it totally alienates 50% (technically 49.5%) of the population with no real desire or effort to include them. That is not a government representing the will of the people, it's a government loyal to only ½ of it. When the majority of officials are loyal to the same party, the group that voted against them are further disenfranchised.

It's a horrid system disguised as a democratic republic but ends up being the election of dictators & tyrants.

If you don't like it here why not go somewhere else?
Some of us are trying. However, which is more patriotic? Fredrick Douglas spending his time in the US trying to convince people to join the abolitionist movement when he couldn't vote or run for office versus the Fredrick Douglas that left the US for Africa to end his years?

Those who love the country & it's ideals should stay & fight for them. There are more laws & mechanisms to be proud of & become engaged in than the one to "vote" that make this country more democratic & liberated.

Voting is the most powerful and legitimate way to affect change
It's this mentality that the politicians & parties are trying to foster. It is acutally blinding. When the bulk of the voting population (those who do go out) feel their only true tool for change is voting for a president every 4 years (you can tell by how many vote for president, vs. other offices on non-Pres voting years as well as total votes in all the regional elections) they miss the point. If the only time you have a voice is only if 1 person gets elected (or re-elected) every 4 years, you're voting for a king, not a representative. For many they don't realize that this society works best when engaged on a regular basis, not just when a punchcard (or nowadays, a touchscreen) comes around.

There are plenty of examples where voting had nothing to do with a dramatic change in society. It didn't matter who was president when the civil rights movement was going on, they had to concede. It didn't matter who was in congress when 9/11 came around, whoever it was would've been swept up into the fervor & gave the president his initial powers. It didn't matter who the mayor was when women's sufferage came to prominance.

For indivuduals to hold up voting as the "holy grail" often puts so much undue prestige into voting that they miss the opportunities to do other things that are more direct, specific, & immediate.

I figger the ones who win the most from voting being the only moment of participation are the politicians themselves. If there were no demonstrations. If there were no letters to congress. If we just ignored our local elections as well as voting for specific articles, then the politician can run rimshod over anything without us worrying between the 4 years between voting.

Voting is not the only way to participate in our society to affect change or sustain current things. Voting is not the most effective way to affect our society. Voting is not the quickest way to affect change. Those who don't vote, but are engaged & aware can (and are) effective in their efforts to change.

Kind've like the Bengal's dismal decade of defeat.
The "voter" is the one who continued to support the Bengals, buying a 99 Buck jersey, getting Akili to sign his trading card, & spending thousands of dollars on luxury seats.

The "non voter" are the ones who gave up, learned how to golf in the fall & found out how hockey was played instead of participating.

Which one caused Mike to change? The ones who continued to pay him or the money he could've gotten if he did change? non-participation can work.

[the happy prole]

I've already posted what I think of this. I happen to agree with you that the vast majority of non-voters are lazy and/or simply want to complain.

However, look at Duemellon. Whatever you think of his views, I think you must admit that 1) He feels strongly about them and 2) His views are SO far off the map that no candidate is even anywhere close, and indeed the political system is nowhere close.

So out of the 55% or whatever who don't vote, I would actually say that Duemellon represents a principled non-vote.

And out of the 45% who DO vote-- well theoretically they voted so they are participants right? I'm not so sure. Half-assed participation in some ways is worse than no participation. I think a huge portion of people who vote do so without really understanding any of the issues and only do it so that they can either complain or else lord it over the losers.

After the last election I was watching the results at a bar, talking to a friend and someone overheard that I was a Democrat. At least 10 people went up to my table and started trash talking me. Seriously, the words "In your face" were uttered several times.

It's not a fucking sports event, man (not that that would be cool even if it was a sports event.) There's a bit more at stake here than feeding your ego. If someone had said "Thank God we were successful in stopping your baby-killing, sin supporting ways" at least I'd have to respect them for taking the election seriously.

[frizgolf]

I recall that old Rush lyric: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
I wholeheartedly agree that choosing not to vote is indeed freedom of choice, if only because I was disillusioned by the entire process in my youth. I now vote, if only to decide issues and local candidates.
The hand wringing of pollsters about non-participation is merely paranoia over the possible loss of their own jobs. Fewer voters = less need for pundits and pollsters.
Meh. As long as there are at least three people voting in the country, we can still elect a president.
Silence speaks volumes.

[Duemellon]

Anyway, my "derision" was prompted by you making a sweeping generalization about "conservative/traditional thinkers" such as myself clinging to antiquated notions such as thinking voting can actually determine who holds elected office while also being in favor of shooting people who don't vote.If u read the clarifying post later, before you even responded (which was after the clarification post) u'd see I wasn't saying u'd shoot those who didn't vote, but force (shoot) those things you couldn't vote for.

anywhoo...
We're here now. You've repeatedly said that people who don't vote are "nonparticipants" which isn't true. So I decided to take it here. Here's your chance... argue your view... that those who vote are the real active people in the society & those who do not are inactive & have no right to complain.I don't believe this ever happens. I think people give up, walk away, then bitch.There are people who vote while horribly misinformed, or they vote, their newly elected president acts crazy/does something wrong, & they just apologize & complain for the next 4 years.

Faith in voting has euthanized activists.

I was talking with someone from Sweden. She was talking about how she heard a conservationist speaker in Sweden& then heard the same person speaking in the US to a largely 'merican crowd. When the Sweden discussion was over, people were asking scientific data, making meetings, & were "informed & energized", when the 'merican crowd was done they mostly sat around asking "what can we do?"

It would seem that the Swedes knew what to do, but the 'mericans, with nothing on the ballot & no political leader they could vote for, were confused & assumed they were disenfranchized.To vote means a lot more than one candidate or one issue.How is that? You elect the candidate & let them do whatever they want for their intravoting term. An issue is an issue & if you disagree with it's exact wording you don't have the power as a nonelected official to take your eraser to the proposal, write in the words you want & then vote for it & have it count.

[Breeze]

After the last election I was watching the results at a bar, talking to a friend and someone overheard that I was a Democrat. At least 10 people went up to my table and started trash talking me. Seriously, the words "In your face" were uttered several times.

It's not a fucking sports event, man (not that that would be cool even if it was a sports event.) There's a bit more at stake here than feeding your ego. If someone had said "Thank God we were successful in stopping your baby-killing, sin supporting ways" at least I'd have to respect them for taking the election seriously.

This is something I've noticed as well. The point for many who do vote seems simply to be the ability to say "We won!" And, of course, along with that comes the "in your face" comments--or, my personal favorite, "Get over it!"

I certainly don't think that such a mentality trumps the aforementioned principled non-voter through mere participation.

[Shlep]

After the last election I was watching the results at a bar, talking to a friend and someone overheard that I was a Democrat. At least 10 people went up to my table and started trash talking me. Seriously, the words "In your face" were uttered several times.

Holy shit...you have got to be kidding me. "In your face"? Did any of the guys look like this:

http://home.wtal.de/homer/home/ho_smile.gif

Suddenly, Bushs' sophomore term begins to make more sense. I retract what I said earlier about not voting...some people really ought not to.

[Unrequited]

There are always options, even though, with each election, it becomes more and more a choice of the lesser of two evils. Though I am a liberal to the core, Kerry was a terrible candidate. I had to vote for him and hold my nose.

My father-in-law, a lifelong Republican, lives in Indiana and detests Bush. Since Indiana always votes Republican, instead of voting for Kerry, he voted for Nader to voice the need for a third party in American politics. Another Republican friend in Michigan who hates Bush wrote in McCain.

[Slar]

Due, you should have made this thread a poll.

[Shlep]

I'd have refused to vote to show my displeasure with this thread.

[ICONOCLAST420]

Our electons might mean more if it weren't for obstacles to getting third parties on the ballot, the demopublicans and republicrats won't give up their duopoly without a fight. For the record I have voted Libertarian in the last four presidential elections.

[Slar]

I'd have refused to vote to show my displeasure with this thread.[Waits around the corner to see who jumps on this.]

[purple_octopus]

Our electons might mean more if it weren't for obstacles to getting third parties on the ballot, the demopublicans and republicrats won't give up their duopoly without a fight. For the record I have voted Libertarian in the last four presidential elections.
It's true. If all parties were treated equally (not specially, just equally) in getting their candidates on the ballot, elections for office would be a lot more meaningful. (Believe it or not, it requires both more money *and* more signatures to get a 3rd party on the ballot than a Democrat or a Republican. Which is funny, because the 3rd parties are usually the ones that aren't funded out the ass.)

I don't care if people vote or not. Some people honestly don't believe in it. Which is fine, even if I think they're wrong. :p But if they refuse to work within the current system, and refuse to do *anything* to change the current system (start a revolution, civil war, whatever), then I probably won't take them seriously. Which is fair, because no one is putting a gun to their head forcing them to take me seriously. (Yet. hehe.)

[markalot]

[b]and[/i]

You have to decide. Do you want bold, or do you want italic. Republicans are bold, liberals are italic. You know, slanted. Can't trust em.

[purple_octopus]

[b]and[/i]

You have to decide. Do you want bold, or do you want italic. Republicans are bold, liberals are italic. You know, slanted. Can't trust em.
This is why I less than three markalot.

[drougan]

Faith in voting has euthanized activists.

It would seem that the Swedes knew what to do, but the 'mericans, with nothing on the ballot & no political leader they could vote for, were confused & assumed they were disenfranchized.How is that? You elect the candidate & let them do whatever they want for their intravoting term. An issue is an issue & if you disagree with it's exact wording you don't have the power as a nonelected official to take your eraser to the proposal, write in the words you want & then vote for it & have it count.

I totally disagree with both the assertions in this post and the logic behind it.

First off Sweden is a constitutional monarchy, so they have the vote, granted its a different system but there are still general elections and political parties. I think it's irresponsible in this situation to ascribe the cultural differences between the Swedes and us to voting rights.

And yeah...you're not personally going to get much audience with an elected official in an executive role (ie mayor, governor, prez), but youre not supposed to. Theyre supposed to do stuff, and you buggin' them about this and that isn't going to help that. You vote for them, but then you're trusting them to do their job. The way you're supposed to keep tabs on them is by going to your other elected officials in the legislative part of the government. If they don't listen, then you go grass roots, with your like minded buddies, and form your own movement when your needs aren't being addressed.

The bottom line is, if you're not voting because of lack of interest, then you need to either be running for office or going the grass roots route. And I'm sure this is what Due would be doing, maybe even is doing. But many people who don't vote continue their noninvolvement by not doing anything else, and that to me just sounds weak.

IMO, if you're not voting, you should be doing something else politically active to compensate. And even if you do vote, you need to re-up your duties by calling your elected officials out when they're not meeting your expectations.

The lack of political involvement in this country doesn't stem from our right to vote, but the voting habits of americans do stem from our lack of political involvement. Maybe we're just too busy, maybe we're too self absorbed and materialistic, or maybe we just have it too good right now to put up a real fight, i dunno.

[DaHood]

If you didn't vote, you don't have a right to complain
Strange enough, there's the freedom of speech that ensures just the opposite. I have the right to complain about whatever I want & your attempt to declare my rights dead is strange indeed.
There's also the fact that you are (I assume) a taxpayer. However, your choice to not vote may compel one to not take debate with you seriously.

[the_birds]

I do agree, we must do SOMETHING to promote the viability of 3rd+ parties.

Also, you should ALMOST be forced to vote. Something like, you can only abstain from 3 elections every 6 years or your citizenship would be revoked or put on probation. Come the F on, vote already. Americans are a bunch of lazy F'ers.

[Homsar]

Let's say I voted in the last presidential election. Now let's say I wrote in for Calvin and Hobbes for pres and vice-pres. What does that say?

[Duemellon]

Yah, gave into the pressure & put a vote up there.It's true. If all parties were treated equally (not specially, just equally) in getting their candidates on the ballot, elections for office would be a lot more meaningful.this is one of the biggest faults of our current 2-party system. The ability to introduce new ideas by the common person is so limited. As I was alluding to, when it's time for you to vote on the Same-Sex Marriage article, can you simply erase a few lines & add in there: "I vote for civil unions, but not marriage"?But if they refuse to work within the current system, and refuse to do *anything* to change the current system (start a revolution, civil war, whatever), then I probably won't take them seriously.Well, sociopolitical changes are actually & normally done by a few people in comparison to the population they're making a decision for. During the 'merican Revolution (which should be referred to as the War for State Independence, b/c we didn't liberate all Americas) the amount of people actually fighting the war was much less than the population who would be affected by it.

I guess that's what I'm getting at. It doesn't take a lot of people to change things & the apathetic people who really will take whatever comes there way have their place too.First off Sweden is a constitutional monarchy, so they have the vote, granted its a different system but there are still general elections and political parties.The statement was more about how we don't have a clue how to get active.And yeah...you're not personally going to get much audience with an elected official in an executive role (ie mayor, governor, prez), but youre not supposed to. With that I disagree. I've sat down & talked to politicians while in office & on the campaign trail. They make themselves accessible. You are supposed to b/c they are supposed to represent you.You vote for them, but then you're trusting them to do their jobThat's one part that worries me. That's what I am referring to when we "elect monarchies". We put them in a position & watch them go. Now you're not saying it's a complete "hands-off" but it seems you're suggesting a level of distance that I feel incredibly uncomfortable with.IMO, if you're not voting, you should be doing something else politically active to compensate.A further reference back to the 'merican Revolution analogy I just gave... there are many people out there who don't really care what's going on in politics as long as they ain't being shot at. They'll pay high taxes, or low; they'll let immigrants come & go; it don't matter to them, u'kno?...your choice to not vote may compel one to not take debate with you seriously.The riots took place. Change happened. No one voted.

The police cheif Streicher doesn't force the release of internal investigations before the civil trial ends for Roach, he keeps his job so change doesn't happen, no one gets to vote.

We voted to pay for a stadium to keep the Bengals. 10 years later, change finally happened.

Kerry & Bush wanted to keep the war going. Both didn't want same-sex marriage. Neither of them were going to do a gawddamned relevent thing about racism. A vote for either gets us to the same place we were before in the areas important to me. Vote = the change I wanted wouldn't happen. Not vote = the change I wanted wouldn't happen.

[the happy prole]

It's true. If all parties were treated equally (not specially, just equally) in getting their candidates on the ballot, elections for office would be a lot more meaningful. (Believe it or not, it requires both more money *and* more signatures to get a 3rd party on the ballot than a Democrat or a Republican. Which is funny, because the 3rd parties are usually the ones that aren't funded out the ass.)

I don't vote for a party. I vote for a candidate. It takes more "signatures" and more cash for a Democrat or Republican to end up on a final ballot and it's not even remotely close.

[Duemellon]

Also, you should ALMOST be forced to vote.You can be fined in Australia if u don't vote.

[purple_octopus]

I don't vote for a party. I vote for a candidate. It takes more "signatures" and more cash for a Democrat or Republican to end up on a final ballot and it's not even remotely close.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. The standards for getting a candidate on the ballot are different (read: more lenient) if you are a Republican or a Democrat than if you are a candidate of any other party. Of course, it is different from state to state. This website (http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/case/3pt/winger.html) has some decent examples of what I'm talking about.

Ballot Access Laws Governing the Democratic and Republican Presidential Primaries
To be included on all state primary ballots, presidential candidates must pay total filing fees of $8,100. In addition, candidates must submit petition signatures from registered voters, but the number of signatures required depends upon whether the candidate is "important" or "unimportant ."

An "important" candidate running in the Democratic primary must submit 26,000 signatures nationwide; an "important" Republican must submit 54,750.

However, if the candidate is "unimportant," he or she needs 112,251 petition signatures to qualify for access to the Democratic primary ballot or 141,001 signatures for the Republican.

"Important" candidates need fewer signatures than "unimportant" candidates because many states waive signature requirements for "important" candidates. But no state uses the term "important candidates" or "unimportant candidates." Instead, their laws refer to "candidates recognized in the news media" and "other candidates." In other words, if a candidate is acknowledged by television newsmen and major newspaper reporters as someone worth covering, then that candidate has a much easier time getting on the ballot.

Even in states which make no distinction between "candidates recognized by the media" and "other candidates," the former have an advantage getting on the ballot. For example, in 1988 Republican presidential candidates needed 5,000 signatures to get on the Texas primary ballot. Most of the Republican contenders, including Senator Robert Dole, failed to get these signatures. It turned out that many of the Republican candidates had hired the same petition-gathering firm to obtain the needed signatures. In turn, this particular petition-gathering firm hired unscrupulous petitioners who forged names on the petitions. When the forgeries were discovered and invalidated, the state Republican Party and the Texas Secretary of State quickly announced that all the candidates would be placed on the ballot anyway, even though most of them did not have enough valid signatures. "Unimportant" candidates never get such royal treatment when they fail to get enough signatures.
This makes it more difficult for the Democrats and Republicans to produce the best candidate, if you happen to prefer the two-party system. In addition:

Ballot Access Laws Governing Third Party and Independent Candidates
Following the primaries, independent candidates and nominees of third parties must gain access to the general election ballot. For independents and third party nominees, the laws are more severe than for candidates running as Democrats or Republicans. Independent presidential candidates and third party nominees need approximately 750,000 valid signatures in order to get on the general election ballots of all states. For Democrats and Republicans, access is automatic. In 1924, third party presidential candidates needed only 75,000 signatures to get on the ballot of all states. The population of the United States since doubled, but ballot access laws are many times more diffficult. Change began during the 1930s when major party politicians were eager to discourage labor from starting its own party.

The laws were again made more restrictive during the period 1948-1953 when fear and hatred of the Communist Party were very strong. Ballot access laws were tightened further during 1969-1975 after George Wallace's 1968 third party showing of 13% shocked Democratic and Republican Party politicians. In 1968 the U.S. Supreme Court stated for the first time that overly strict ballot access laws violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. However, in 1971, the Court made it plain that they were only willing to declare such laws unconstitutional if the laws were so diffficult that virtually no one could ever use them. The Court has ruled that ballot access laws can require candidates to obtain the signatures of 5 % of the number of registered voters. Five percent of the number of registered voters in the U.S. at this time is approximately 7,500,000. Since petition gathering costs about $1.00 per signature, the Court's ruling means that it is constitutionally permissible for states to erect ballot access hurdles costing candidates over $7,000,000 to comply.

[the happy prole]

No, I understand what you're saying.

I fully believe that John Kerry and George Bush should have to get 10,000 signatures to get on the Virginia ballot, just like the third party dudes.

However, I hardly think McCain, M. Warner, George Allen, Hillary Clinton, Gore, Guiliani, Jeb Bush or any other of the dozens of candidates considering a run from the major parties are shaking in their boots at the prospect of having to collect 10,000 signatures in Virginia. They're thinking about trying to get at least ten times that many actual mano a mano votes to get on the ballot.

Libertarians get the crapped kicked out of them at elections because no one likes or cares about Libertarians. You can curse at people all you want, but you can't blame the government.

[Breeze]

Let's say I voted in the last presidential election. Now let's say I wrote in for Calvin and Hobbes for pres and vice-pres. What does that say?

That you'd probably vote for me.

[Breeze]

Libertarians get the crapped kicked out of them at elections because no one likes or cares about Libertarians.

Yeah! What he said! Who gives a crap about books, fer Godsake.

[purple_octopus]

Libertarians get the crapped kicked out of them at elections because no one likes or cares about Libertarians. You can curse at people all you want, but you can't blame the government.
This is not about the Libertarian party. Or any third party, really. These rules apply to independents as well. And as you saw, there are even additional rules for "lesser known" major party candidates. With these rules in place, it is difficult for voters to have sufficient options presented to them, regardless of their political leanings. I hear far too many people bitch about having to hold their noses while they vote. It shouldn't be that way. What is wrong with one set of rules for everyone?

[the happy prole]

Sorry, P_O. I was just using Libertarians as an example because they are the closest thing to a legit third party we have. They have a platform and ideology that is not associated with one particular person, and some prominent support among those oh-so-hated intellectual elite.

I dispute the notion that voters don't have sufficient options presented to them. If there's a particular candidate or party I have interest in, it's not that hard to e-mail them and get my signature on a petition. If I'm not aware of you as an option until I go to the voting booth, then I don't know enough about you to vote for you anyway. Or if I vote for you, I'm kind of a dumbass.

The major parties get a big advantage with the distribution of federal dollars, but again, I don't have to give them that $1 on my tax form if I don't want to (and I don't).

And Breeze, it's a good thing you aren't part of the intellectual elite.

[purple_octopus]

Sorry, P_O. I was just using Libertarians as an example because they are the closest thing to a legit third party we have. They have a platform and ideology that is not associated with one particular person, and some prominent support among those oh-so-hated intellectual elite.

I dispute the notion that voters don't have sufficient options presented to them. If there's a particular candidate or party I have interest in, it's not that hard to e-mail them and get my signature on a petition. If I'm not aware of you as an option until I go to the voting booth, then I don't know enough about you to vote for you anyway. Or if I vote for you, I'm kind of a dumbass.

The major parties get a big advantage with the distribution of federal dollars, but again, I don't have to give them that $1 on my tax form if I don't want to (and I don't).

And Breeze, it's a good thing you aren't part of the intellectual elite.

You still haven't answered my question. What is wrong with one set of rules that apply to everyone?

[Shlep]

Various points for those who feel non-voters are poor citizens & their counter arguments.

If you didn't vote, you don't have a right to complain
Strange enough, there's the freedom of speech that ensures just the opposite. I have the right to complain about whatever I want & your attempt to declare my rights dead is strange indeed.

I think this is misinterpreted as saying that you don't have the legal right-- such as the right to speak freely, bear arms, be secure in your home/personal effects/papers et all-- to complain if you don't vote. I disagree, and perhaps it's clumsily worded. It'd be more clear and accurate to say you don't have any business complaining.

People who don't vote aren't taking advantage of the most effective tool to support change or maintaining the current course
Contemporarily speaking the most rapid & radical changes in our society took place through violence (or non-violence), economic pressure, or pop culture, not politicians.

Sure. Just ask John Kerry how well it worked having half the music industry shilling for him. Anyway, what economic pressure are you going to put on Congress or the White House? We're taxpayers; they take our money whether we like it or not and are empowered to toss us in jail if we try ducking out of paying. Economic pressure works great in the private sector (i.e. boycotts that led to doing away with kicking black people to the back of the bus and "Whites Only" lunch counters), not in government.

It is a winner-take all democracy, where, regardless of how close the race, if the winner doesn't agree with the 2nd-highest voting populations' desire for change/stability they do not feel compelled to represent those who did not vote for them. Meaning: If they are not the constituents they feel no compuction to represent their interests or concerns. This means an elected person could've won by a slight margin of only 0.5% and it totally alienates 50% (technically 49.5%) of the population with no real desire or effort to include them. That is not a government representing the will of the people, it's a government loyal to only ½ of it. When the majority of officials are loyal to the same party, the group that voted against them are further disenfranchised.

So you've completely removed swing-voters and people without die-hard partisan leaning completely from the equation just by saying so. Amazing.

It's a horrid system disguised as a democratic republic but ends up being the election of dictators & tyrants.

Dictators and tyrants who wield unfettered, unchecked power that answer to nobody...except for the House of Reps, the Senate, interest groups, lobbies, and voters themselves.

If you don't like it here why not go somewhere else?
Some of us are trying. However, which is more patriotic? Fredrick Douglas spending his time in the US trying to convince people to join the abolitionist movement when he couldn't vote or run for office versus the Fredrick Douglas that left the US for Africa to end his years?

I've only heard people blather on, unsolicited, about moving to Canada or France when their guy loses. Never heard anyone invite someone who voted for the loser to do this.

Those who love the country & it's ideals should stay & fight for them. There are more laws & mechanisms to be proud of & become engaged in than the one to "vote" that make this country more democratic & liberated.

Such as?

Voting is the most powerful and legitimate way to affect change
It's this mentality that the politicians & parties are trying to foster. It is acutally blinding. When the bulk of the voting population (those who do go out) feel their only true tool for change is voting for a president every 4 years (you can tell by how many vote for president, vs. other offices on non-Pres voting years as well as total votes in all the regional elections) they miss the point. If the only time you have a voice is only if 1 person gets elected (or re-elected) every 4 years, you're voting for a king, not a representative.

A king ruling for a dynasty that comes up for renewal in 4 years and cannot, according to the ground rules of the country, last more than 8. And he still answers to other elected officials who get elected halfway through his term, or at the start. This "point" is nonsense.

There are plenty of examples where voting had nothing to do with a dramatic change in society. It didn't matter who was president when the civil rights movement was going on, they had to concede. It didn't matter who was in congress when 9/11 came around, whoever it was would've been swept up into the fervor & gave the president his initial powers. It didn't matter who the mayor was when women's sufferage came to prominance.

Yeah, and Communism worked great when the Nazis invaded Russia; I don't see anyone with a brain claiming Communism is a fantastic system. This example uses what transpired immediately following a nationally galvanizing event precipitated by an attack on our own soil, which hadn't happened for 60 years and has only happened a few times in our entire history. Holding this up as something to compare political business as usual to is absurd.

For indivuduals to hold up voting as the "holy grail" often puts so much undue prestige into voting that they miss the opportunities to do other things that are more direct, specific, & immediate.

Well, there's always hopping the fence and running across the South Lawn demanding to meet the President. Though the Secret Service usually will nab you within seconds. And you run the risk of getting shot.

I figger the ones who win the most from voting being the only moment of participation are the politicians themselves. If there were no demonstrations. If there were no letters to congress. If we just ignored our local elections as well as voting for specific articles, then the politician can run rimshod over anything without us worrying between the 4 years between voting.

The term is "roughshod." And while petition and protest are meaningful, legitimate exercises in democracy, they're meaningless without force of votes behind them. Running around waving signs bitching about an elected official and then boycotting voting at election time has the same effect as the parent who tells his kid for the 87th time that you're telling him, for the last time, and you *REALLY* mean it...

Voting is not the only way to participate in our society to affect change or sustain current things. Voting is not the most effective way to affect our society. Voting is not the quickest way to affect change. Those who don't vote, but are engaged & aware can (and are) effective in their efforts to change.

Apart from perhaps raising awareness and drawing sympathetic people who actually *will* vote...I fail to see how.

You more or less made the assertion, Due, that by not voting you deprive politicians of the votes they're hungry for and inspire them to effect change. Not surprisingly, I find this reasoning to be quite illogical. For one thing, how exactly do politicians quantify the number of people who didn't vote for them?

EDIT: It occurs to me now that in response to the assertion that voting 3rd-party = throwing votes away-- I think a tally of ballots cast for a 3rd-party challenger is a great way to let the other two main parties know exactly how many people are willing to vote, and could have voted for them, if they worked harder for those votes.

For another, this ignores the fact that there are die-hard partisans who will vote for their guy if he campaigns on a platform calling for mandatory kicks to the nuts for all males of voting age...their votes can be counted on, hence the pols pay attention to them.

Kind've like the Bengal's dismal decade of defeat.
The "voter" is the one who continued to support the Bengals, buying a 99 Buck jersey, getting Akili to sign his trading card, & spending thousands of dollars on luxury seats.

The "non voter" are the ones who gave up, learned how to golf in the fall & found out how hockey was played instead of participating.

Which one caused Mike to change? The ones who continued to pay him or the money he could've gotten if he did change? non-participation can work.

This is another apples-to-oranges comparison. The Cincinnatti Bengals are a pro sports team; pro sports teams are commercial, profit-driven enterprises. The US government, on the other hand, is not. Losses in revenue are much more straightforward and measurable; losses in votes not nearly as much so. And the owner of the Bengals (unless you folks in Cincy are more enamored of the home team than I was led to believe) is not authorized to garnish your wages so that he gets a nice payday regardless. Meanwhile, the US government can run at a loss that would provide the GNP for several small countries at once and still not worry about going out of business; the Bengals can't. Nobody is going to tear down Capitol Hill, relocate the Congress and President to St. Louis, and build a new seat of government called "FedEx Congress."

[DaHood]

DaHood
...your choice to not vote may compel one to not take debate with you seriously.
The riots took place. Change happened. No one voted.

The police cheif Streicher doesn't force the release of internal investigations before the civil trial ends for Roach, he keeps his job so change doesn't happen, no one gets to vote.

We voted to pay for a stadium to keep the Bengals. 10 years later, change finally happened.

Kerry & Bush wanted to keep the war going. Both didn't want same-sex marriage. Neither of them were going to do a gawddamned relevent thing about racism. A vote for either gets us to the same place we were before in the areas important to me. Vote = the change I wanted wouldn't happen. Not vote = the change I wanted wouldn't happen.
__________________I'm not exactly sure where you're going in reference to what I said. What I was talking about was more of on a one and one level. I had an argument with a libertarian once who attacked me for voting democrat. When I asked him "well then how did you vote?" he replied "I don't vote". I politely said " This discussion is over."

Ironically I am now seriously looking at the libertarians.

You are certainly entitled to your opinions in this country even if you don't vote, but I don't have to listen to you either.

In reference to your response: Are you suggesting that instead of voting people should riot?

I am not trying to be facetious, I am simply trying to understand.

[DaHood]

You can be fined in Australia if u don't vote.
Is that true? That's an interesting bit of information.

[Shlep]

Is that true? That's an interesting bit of information.

I don't think Australia is unique inthat regard. I think mandatory voting, or at least declared party affiliation, is a feature of politics in a number of European countries.

[DaHood]

I don't see anyone with a brain claiming Communism is a fantastic system.I disagree with this statement, but I still think that communism sucks.

[DaHood]

I don't think Australia is unique inthat regard. I think mandatory voting, or at least declared party affiliation, is a feature of politics in a number of European countries.
I just wouldn't have expected that of Australia.

[the happy prole]

You still haven't answered my question. What is wrong with one set of rules that apply to everyone?

I thought I did. Nothing.

I'd vote for one set of rules applying for every candidate-- not just in a state but uniformly across the nation. And I'd make it pretty easy: You get signatures from 0.25% of the registered voters in a state, you can get on that state's Presidential ballot.

It would be the best thing for third parties ever. Not because they'd suddenly get more recognition but because they would get their asses kicked just as badly as they ever have. And then they'd be out of excuses and would maybe actually try to do something.

[Breeze]

And Breeze, it's a good thing you aren't part of the intellectual elite.

Yeah, maybe I'll be president someday.

[justmaybetiger]

I don't think voting the highest form of citizen participation in government, it's crucial however. But actually running for office/just being actively involved with the government as a community service, not as a career politician, is far higher in my opinion. I wish we didn't have political parties in the first place but failing that America particularly needs to break away from the two party system in the worst way.

[Breeze]

actually running for office/just being actively involved with the government as a community service, not as a career politician, is far higher in my opinion.

In theory, this is true. But even at a local level, it's not always easy to find someone who's serving as opposed to holding office.

[DaHood]

I don't think voting the highest form of citizen participation in government, it's crucial however. But actually running for office/just being actively involved with the government as a community service, not as a career politician, is far higher in my opinion.
Agreed but I think that the option meant people in general who don't actually go into politics as in running for office etc.

[Duemellon]

I think this is misinterpreted as saying that you don't have the legal rightNo, in this case I was talking about how ppl are dismissive as "u don't have the right", which is totally absurd. It's as if they refuse to digest the principles they worship as the best doggone govnt possible.

Democracy is nothing w/o things to chose from. If the only choice is the "vote" then it's not much of a choice, is it? So please, stop imagining you're a better citizen b/c u vote when compared to someone else who pays taxes, saves kids from poverty, empowers the downtrodden, & increases literacy.

The subpoint of that is that, Democracy is nothing w/o choices. If the question is "Which one of these letters immediately follows the letter C in the English alphabet" and the only options you get are

1) A
2) a

Then none of these are right but people say you still have to take the test or you're a bad participant. WTF? The "choices" aren't really choices because they're the same.It'd be more clear and accurate to say you don't have any business complaining.to complain about what? The way the police stare me down? The way my job has bizarre behavioral requirements? The way people prefer the pursuit of monetary achievement instead of sustainability? Which person, candidate, or party, embodies such things? So far, the choices are between

1) A
2) a

Vote for what?Sure. Just ask John Kerry how well it worked having half the music industry shilling for him.Pop culture is not limited to the music industry. It includes Pokemon to digital camera availability. Why do you chose to be so limited in ur appreciation for what is said?

I say pop culture & u limit it to music, that's really bizarre.

Queer Eye for the Straight Guy is pop culture. What has it done? Pair it with gay winners on survivor, Will & Grace, & other popculture things & the homosexual world is suddenly not as hidden, reviled, etc. I kno, I kno, you think u'r over the influence of such lame Jedi mind tricks as having Nat King Cole be on television, or Bill Cosby showing a wealthy & stable black family, but if you don't think the rest of your contemporaries are duped, please note how many teens wore pink in the last few years & explain how the Adkins diet even seemed to make sense enough for companies to start pandering to them.Anyway, what economic pressure are you going to put on Congress or the White House?My house may be in the US, but it's more directly affected by local govnt than the big ol' monster of the feds.

You're on a ship called the USS Tenneseean but you think you're steering the ocean called the U.S.Economic pressure works great in the private sector (i.e. boycotts that led to doing away with kicking black people to the back of the bus and "Whites Only" lunch counters), not in government.strange how that works. The Feds don't give a good goddamn about the plight of blacks in the 50's but once they pressure the private sectore the govnt notices.

They couldn't've voted (that was part of the reason for the boycott) & even if they were given the ability to vote, it wouldn't've appeared on the ballot. I just don't see how you can defend your position that boycotting on a localized level is ineffective when examples have shown they can have a national impact even when there's no vote to be made.So you've completely removed swing-voters and people without die-hard partisan leaning completely from the equation just by saying so. Amazing.It's as if you don't try to understand the bigger picture suggested.

The official gets into office from the people who elected him in. He stays in office the entire term he was elected unless he commits an gross ethical error or crime. He responds to the ppl who voted for him b/c they were enough to have kept him in office the last time & can totally marginalize the remainder. I don't even think you read my posts/w any attempt to comprehend them & it's very frustrating.

As if you're better at saying "you're wrong" than actually trying to understand. You don't ask questions, you just tear down. You don't supply a different view, you just point out how wrong the other's is.Those who love the country & it's ideals should stay & fight for them. There are more laws & mechanisms to be proud of & become engaged in than the one to "vote" that make this country more democratic & liberated.
Such as?I went over them. If you missed them it's either because you don't believe they work (which is historically proven that they DO work) or you just didn't bother to take the time to piece them together just so you could dismiss the points being made.

Your constant lack of interest to see the other side is wearying.A king ruling for a dynastyKings don't always have a dynasty. Kings don't have absolute power all the time. Kings are not rulers for life all the time either.This "point" is nonsense.only to someone who takes the argumen piecemeal & doesn't listen to the overall message. There's context you're missing because you just don't want to comprehend another person's view.I don't see anyone with a brain claiming Communism is a fantastic system.I remember you saying something similar to this a long long time ago.

It went:

"I don't know any successful Black people complaining about racism"

To which I was sure we were properly introduced so you finally knew one. Well, looks like we're doing it again...

"Hi, my name Roy, you might know me as Duemellon. I think Communism is a great system."

Done, now you do. Did your head asplode again?Holding this (9/11) up as something to compare political business as usual to is absurd.But again, b/c you're more interested in tearing down my point you missed it.

I didn't say 9/11 was an example of how voting was less effective than other means, I said the reaction by the very ppl we voted into office would've been the same regardless of how we voted or what we voted for prior to the moment.

In other words, if you voted for a peacenick diplomacy-loving hippy, when the pres comes to you saying "We got attacked, vote for this so I can do something" what do you do? Yep, they're supposed to read the fucking Patriot Act & limit the prez's capacity to go to war unilaterally (referring to the office going on it's own), but instead they just wiped the dust & crumbled steel from their eyes & only saw a fucking spangle....they're meaningless without force of votes behind them.The examples I gave had nothing to do/w an actual threat of voting but you still just ran over those like worn speed bumps. Please, try to understand how the civil rights movement worked, or how voting for the Bengal's stadium didn't.You more or less made the assertion, Due, that by not voting you deprive politicians of the votes they're hungry for and inspire them to effect change.What? I did no such thing.

Maybe you're arguing with someone else. Someone who's view you've already combatted. I have not said such a thing & take offense. What does voting or not voting have to do with the Cincy riots or the Bus Boycott? Have you heard & tried to apply any of the points I've made about how our democracy allows other avenues to affect change in our society outside of voting?This is another apples-to-oranges comparison.If you really aren't trying to understand someone else's view, then every offerred analogy is distasteful to you.

We covered this years ago:
Every analogy is flawed.

The only analogy that is not flawed is to compare orange to oranges, but that's not an analogy in function, only symantecs.

[the happy prole]

It's interesting we're having this discussion because the one thing specific to Libertarians I've always kind of wondered is, why bother voting?

Government is the opponent. So when you try to change government via government process you totally give up home field advantage.

And see, if Libertarians are correct they have the one huge ace-in-the-hole weapon. The people that control and create wealth one. Ayn Rand laid it all out nice and purty. The government can't create anything on it's own and so is dependent upon people for it existence. Not because of the stupid votes, because of the wealth.

Yeah, the government steals your money. But they steal from Republicans and Democrats just the same. Vis a vis other political parties, it's an equal playing field. So just completely ignore the government and go and open a kick-ass business or invent Reardon steel or some shit and people will "vote" for you with their dollars which is really the vote that counts.

To be honest, I think the ol' A #1 weapon is huge dud. I don't think it will work at all. But, I'm happy to be wrong because if I am I have the skills necessary to make it in a libertarian world and the theory says that I'll come out ahead. And I'm standing in the way in the voting booth, because I won't vote libertarian. But I'm not standing in the way economically. I'll patronize libertarian business; I don't care.

Duemellon has a much harder road. He's got to go out and convince people he's right. And that takes a lot of work and skill and time.

Yoshomon has a much harder road. He's got to go out and risk life and limb to do stuff. Takes a lot of planning at no personal gain. And the government will turn its weapons on him before it ever goes after libertarians.

And I'm just totally screwed because I've given up. And I'm just sorta willing to work with whoever and just get my small satisfactions.

All libertarians have to do is work hard and work smart, and it's profitable for them at the same time. The theory is that government is inefficient, and inefficiency is bad, and in the end inefficiency loses. So just go out there and be efficient. It's a movement that is social/economic in nature rather than political, and its the one movement that really doesn't require flowery speeches or revolution at all.

[purple_octopus]

All libertarians have to do is work hard and work smart, and it's profitable for them at the same time. The theory is that government is inefficient, and inefficiency is bad, and in the end inefficiency loses. So just go out there and be efficient. It's a movement that is social/economic in nature rather than political, and its the one movement that really doesn't require flowery speeches or revolution at all.
But revolutions are so much fun. All of those guns. All of that blood. Just beautiful. **wipes tear from eye**

[seafoamgreen]

But revolutions are so much fun. All of those guns. All of that blood. Just beautiful. **wipes tear from eye**

Don't forget the manifestos! And sometimes, when you're really lucky, there's detournment. but only if you're french.

[seafoamgreen]

I'll say this, people not voting really doesn't bother me that much. I understand making a stand against participating in a system in which one feels disenfranchised.

My only point would be that it is worth considering expanding the scope of what we would consider 'political' engagement. It doesn't have to be voting, it could be developing and mainting civil society by active membership in civic organizations, or non-mainstream political groups. It could be community activism or even service. I tend to think these are valid forms of political expression, and grant a certain legitimacy to not voting.

[the happy prole]

Never happens. You get all excited and then before you know it the artists sell out. Huge bummer.

Recuperation is revolution's hangover.

[SheepNutz]

Like P-Diddy says, "Vote or die motherfucker!!!"

[Duemellon]

My only point would be that it is worth considering expanding the scope of what we would consider 'political' engagement.see, there we go (what I've been trying to say/w a whole lot more words, thanks SFG)

What are the purpose of the politicians? What are the purpose of politics? They are not an entity solely created for the sake of itself (as it is often mischaracterized).

Politicians are to protect our way of life (any politician/leader), increase the quality of living (capitalist & humanist govnts), & champion our interests (representative govnt). In a more general since: stabilize the greater society & increase quality of life for everyone.

therefore
If you want to be political, what you need to do is try to do the same things. Stabilize, improve, & protect gains for society. That's why I usually only refer to the act of doing such things to be sociopolitical.

A social change is a political change. A political change affects society. If you think voting is the only effective way to change society, then sit back & watch the other ppl grab the other forms of power that will change society much quicker & profoundly than you can imagine waiting every 4 years (or for the more active, every year) to do it.

[akip]

people get out and vote if they feel a candidate will push something that they're invested in. the less you're committed to family, a career, a business, a religion, or an investment portfolio, the less you're gonna consider it necessary. the distinctions between two parties in a capitalist society running on a narrowly defined track will seem utterly inconsequential.

since i don't believe in ideological purity, i'm more concerned with checking corruption, which is the inevitable consequence of a party and their associate interest groups gaining too much power. voting may be limited as a force, but not voting is too passive an approach for me.

[the happy prole]

Politicians are to protect our way of life (any politician/leader), increase the quality of living (capitalist & humanist govnts), & champion our interests (representative govnt). In a more general since: stabilize the greater society & increase quality of life for everyone.

Nope. This is everyone's job in everything they do, whether they like it or not. You don't have to act sociopolitical, you already are. The more general way of putting it is: Don't be an asshole.

[Shlep]

Democracy is nothing w/o things to chose from. If the only choice is the "vote" then it's not much of a choice, is it? So please, stop imagining you're a better citizen b/c u vote when compared to someone else who pays taxes, saves kids from poverty, empowers the downtrodden, & increases literacy.

When did I say I was a "better citizen" for voting? You gave me a ration of crap for thinking that voting somehow means something in politics, which I thought was absurd, and countered that I thought it was better than just griping about how government never changes without doing anything to change it.

to complain about what? The way the police stare me down? The way my job has bizarre behavioral requirements? The way people prefer the pursuit of monetary achievement instead of sustainability? Which person, candidate, or party, embodies such things?

None. But then again, things like the way the cops stare at you or peoples' lifestyles isn't, or shouldn't be something that is legislated, and I can't help but wonder what relevance it has here.

Pop culture is not limited to the music industry. It includes Pokemon to digital camera availability. Why do you chose to be so limited in ur appreciation for what is said?

I say pop culture & u limit it to music, that's really bizarre.

I didn't limit anything, merely cited one specific example. If you want to broaden the scope of what pop culture is (and obviously you do) then I'd say the standard-bearers of popular/hip/trendy culture are by and large scronful of conservatism and in the last election tended more to support Kerry. And he still lost.

Queer Eye for the Straight Guy is pop culture. What has it done? Pair it with gay winners on survivor, Will & Grace, & other popculture things & the homosexual world is suddenly not as hidden, reviled, etc.

You think in the examples you cite above that pop culture is influencing societal attitudes? I disagree; I think the list you just rattled off show how societal attitudes influence pop culture. COnsider, for a moment, that the person or people in the upper echelons of NBC who are responsible for deciding which of the pilots they just got done viewing are deciding which ones will get rolled out as a new show in the fall and which will never see the light of day. Do you imagine he/them saying "Hmmmm...about this Will & Grace show...well, the American public is largely homophobic and will recoil in puritanical revulsion at the site of a gay guy mincing around his more subdued, formerly closeted, gay friend. Let's get to work on the first season right away! How much you think we can sell ad space for?"

I don't. So far as I'm aware, TV execs air shows that they think people will want to see, hopefully in huge numbers, so that they can make a killing charging companies for the right to run ads during the show.

I kno, I kno, you think u'r over the influence of such lame Jedi mind tricks as having Nat King Cole be on television, or Bill Cosby showing a wealthy & stable black family, but if you don't think the rest of your contemporaries are duped, please note how many teens wore pink in the last few years & explain how the Adkins diet even seemed to make sense enough for companies to start pandering to them.

I'm not sure how to answer this, as I'm not sure what you're asking.


My house may be in the US, but it's more directly affected by local govnt than the big ol' monster of the feds.

The Feds don't give a good goddamn about the plight of blacks in the 50's but once they pressure the private sectore the govnt notices.

They couldn't've voted (that was part of the reason for the boycott) & even if they were given the ability to vote, it wouldn't've appeared on the ballot. I just don't see how you can defend your position that boycotting on a localized level is ineffective when examples have shown they can have a national impact even when there's no vote to be made.It's as if you don't try to understand the bigger picture suggested.

I don't see how I can defend my position that boycotting is ineffective either, considering how I never adopted that position to begin with. I've referred to boycotting in one sentence, in which I stated that it works just fine in some cirucumstances.

The official gets into office from the people who elected him in. He stays in office the entire term he was elected unless he commits an gross ethical error or crime.

Or, in some cases, continues to get re-elected despite committing gross ethical errors or crimes...

He responds to the ppl who voted for him b/c they were enough to have kept him in office the last time & can totally marginalize the remainder. I don't even think you read my posts/w any attempt to comprehend them & it's very frustrating.

I'm aware that politicians tend to do more to curry favor with the portion of their constituency that votes for them, Due; that's an absolute no-brainer. But they cannot "totally marginalize" certain demographics since if they do that enough, they become a voting bloc who may opt to pull the lever for his opponent in the next election. Yes, it's a bitch to unseat an incumbent, but it happens.

As if you're better at saying "you're wrong" than actually trying to understand. You don't ask questions, you just tear down. You don't supply a different view, you just point out how wrong the other's is.I went over them. If you missed them it's either because you don't believe they work (which is historically proven that they DO work) or you just didn't bother to take the time to piece them together just so you could dismiss the points being made. Your constant lack of interest to see the other side is wearying.

Has the possibility occurred to you that I see your side, understand (more or less) what you're saying, can pretty much see where you're coming from, and at the same time *still* disagree with you? As for my supplying a different view: I think I've done at least a passable job of explaining why I think certain positions you're taking are wrong. It is possible, Due, for you to shine the light of your wisdom on folks and have them, after they've rationally considered what you're saying, still disagree with you.

I remember you saying something similar to this a long long time ago.

It went:

"I don't know any successful Black people complaining about racism"

To which I was sure we were properly introduced so you finally knew one.

I dunno if I ever said that, Due. I may have. I can allow that that's something I might say, or at least be paraphrased as saying. If I did say that, then I was being overly simplistic; it'd be more correct (from my POV) that I don't know any successful black people who use racism to explain their difficulties or setbacks, or use it as a handy, generic, catch-all excuse for just not trying, ot to demand things of others. I don't doubt successful black people will also complain about racism, as one can be successful *and* still be subject to, or at least perceive they're subject to, racism. I don't think anyone with a firm grip on reality is going to refuse to accept racism exists (see my sig below) or suggest racism is a swell thing that we need more of.

Well, looks like we're doing it again...

"Hi, my name Roy, you might know me as Duemellon. I think Communism is a great system."

Done, now you do. Did your head asplode again?But again, b/c you're more interested in tearing down my point you missed it.

No. Shocking though it may be to believe, I didn't just now go all "Scanners" and spontaneously spray my grey matter all over the place.

I can concede that saying I know of nobody with a brain who thinks Communism is a great system is dismissive, overly-general, and demonstrably false because upon reconsideration it is. Indeed, Communism has long enjoyed considerable cachet among academics and intellectuals; some of its greatest fans are tenured professors at major universities. Which I think is one of the things I find quite puzzling.

If my head was gonna asplode, it might be due to a synaptic overload trying to reconcile why you, of all people, are a fan of a system of governance in which a relatively small cabal of ruling elite who are largely, if not completely, unaccountable to the masses run a large, bloated bureaucracy which makes government intervention a constant in every facet of your existence. The veins in my forehead, as it is, get good and fired up whenever I try to understand how intellectuals in the West have long been fawning over Communism when intellectuals actually living under Communism have a tendency to wind up dead, "re-educated," or relocated to different climes (it ain't for nothing that some towns in the Russian hinterlands around Siberia are unusually dense with theaters, museums, and other places of artistic/intellectual endeavor). Never mind how anyone can laud Communism in light of the fact that it's been an absolute dismal failure in every single country it's been tried in, and which having been cast off as quickly as it could be in most of the countries it held sway exists only in a couple places (North Korea and Cuba come to mind) where people either will risk death to get away from it or choose death as an option over be repatriated once they leave.

(cont'd...)

[Shlep]

(...Part Deux here)

The stock answers I tend to get from fans of Communism to explain such things is:

1) "Communism never had enough time to really work, and was given up on before it could properly flourish in Eastern Europe." Apparently, 75 years wasn't enough time to start picking up steam.

2) "It's never actually been implemented correctly." Yep, in every single one of the myriad places where Communism was adopted, nobody could tool with it properly to make it hum.

In other words, if you voted for a peacenick diplomacy-loving hippy, when the pres comes to you saying "We got attacked, vote for this so I can do something" what do you do? Yep, they're supposed to read the fucking Patriot Act & limit the prez's capacity to go to war unilaterally (referring to the office going on it's own), but instead they just wiped the dust & crumbled steel from their eyes & only saw a fucking spangle.The examples I gave had nothing to do/w an actual threat of voting but you still just ran over those like worn speed bumps. Please, try to understand how the civil rights movement worked, or how voting for the Bengal's stadium didn't.

You know, Due, I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse here...but what are you saying, exactly? You say that if *I* vote for a hippie President, and then he comes to *me*...since when does the President put legislation up to a vote among the entire population? That's what the elected representative in Congress are for.

[Duemellon]

You know, Due, I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse here...but what are you saying, exactly? You say that if *I* vote for a hippie President, and then he comes to *me*...since when does the President put legislation up to a vote among the entire population? That's what the elected representative in Congress are for.The person you voted for (context of that point) was a representative, not the President.

Back to the main point of this whole thing:
Voting is not as effective as many other things that can be done which can change the sociopolitical landscape in ways the politicians aren't interested in & would never propose.

If you want Gay Marriage to be legal you really don't have to ask the President or Congress to do anything. Heck, there are plenty of avenues to have your voice heard outside of voting that were assured by the founding fathers. Right of free speech, right of assembly, speedy trials, appeals, civil rights, restraint, etc etc. These are all weapons against a government who becomes distant from the populace it is to serve.

The only problem is that the government is erroding those rights & the suggestion is that voting is the purest & best way, which it is not. Voting only allows us to pick what's presented on the ballot. The majority of items on the ballots are created by the politicians. We're still chosing between the things the politicians want to put on the ballots & we're disenfranchized from desiring other social changes as we're told it's too hard, too big, or too ridic.

They're erroding, not because we voted them out, but because the politicians are taking them away. The same ones you voted for are picking apart the other pieces that you could use if you wanted something else:

Freedom of assembly
Unless it's a protest near the President, funerals, city buildings, etc. Well, you need a permit to march downtown.

The right to not be unlawfully detained, searched, etc.
Patriot Act & new executive-issued surveillance capability tossed that out the window. Now they say the only use it to check on foreign-domestic interactions, but we really have no way to double-check it.

etc.

[the happy prole]

Yeah, that's a very good observation.

For that reason, I'd say people need to take yet another step back and stop viewing free speech and protests and stuff as primarily a tool against government. When you gather at a rally for gay marriage and carry a sign that says "Gay marriage: YES" then you've just limited your message to a binary choice just like at the ballot box. And why are we looking for the government to sanction our personal life choices anyway?

Most of the time, you really aren't protesting the government so much as you are other people. And besides, that's your audience. Bush isn't in the Oval Office watching your local protest in the park. One reason (among many) why Phelps is so good at getting under our skin is because none of his signs (that I've seen) address the government. We feel like he's talking to us, and that's why we get so angry.

If people who want social change would devote more of their attention towards directly communicating with other people instead of the government, they'd be a lot more effective. But almost every NGO-- especially the radical ones-- misses that point.

[dannyboy]

Yeah, that's a very good observation.

For that reason, I'd say people need to take yet another step back and stop viewing free speech and protests and stuff as primarily a tool against government. When you gather at a rally for gay marriage and carry a sign that says "Gay marriage: YES" then you've just limited your message to a binary choice just like at the ballot box. And why are we looking for the government to sanction our personal life choices anyway?

Most of the time, you really aren't protesting the government so much as you are other people. And besides, that's your audience. Bush isn't in the Oval Office watching your local protest in the park. One reason (among many) why Phelps is so good at getting under our skin is because none of his signs (that I've seen) address the government. We feel like he's talking to us, and that's why we get so angry.

If people who want social change would devote more of their attention towards directly communicating with other people instead of the government, they'd be a lot more effective. But almost every NGO-- especially the radical ones-- misses that point.
Very good point. The most effective way to bring societal change is to change the attitudes in the hearts and minds of the average person. It's not something that can be switched in an instant either. Patience is a must.