Being an Independent in the USA is like living in a Monarchy

[Agathon]

Originally posted by rah
blah blah blah blah blah.
More excuses. Just admit that you've given up on society and hide in your dark little cave spewing insults and hatred.

I'm not the one blahing. I'm offering reasons for my beliefs in response to your responses. You are just repeating the same sentence again and again.

While I don't always agree with Ozzy, at least he's making an effort to fight for what he believes. I respect him for that. While I was quite active when I was younger, he seems to be doing more.

That's OK for him. Perhaps he sees something in the present political system for him, but many of us don't, and that was the point of the thread, given the limited options on offer.

[rah]

How so?
Going to protests in the early 70's was a great way to get laid. It was a nice side benefit.
And don't forget that streaking was a form of protesting.

[Asher]

Originally posted by rah
How so?
Going to protests in the early 70's was a great way to get laid. It was a nice side benefit.
And don't forget that streaking was a form of protesting.

It's not like that any more. Only ugly people protest.

[rah]

Originally posted by Agathon
That's OK for him. Perhaps he sees something in the present political system for him, but many of us don't, and that was the point of the thread, given the limited options on offer.

You're not looking hard enough. Because you're too busy just sitting on your ass.

There are also many other ways besides voting to impact politics. Ozzy's activisim is one. Hell, CHE is even running for office. (that one still amuses me)

I remember collecting money door to door to legally challange the destruction of state parks. Most of which where eventually saved as a result.

I've sat in a jail cell after being arrested while protesting. Many claimed those protests helped change the opinion of the american people.

I've helped on political campaign. ( I won't say who though hahahahha)

I've helped build houses for the poor.



You're right, there's absolutely nothing you can do that will have any political impact. Geeze blah blah blah
Stop being so negative and go out and do something except making excuses.

There is more to the political process than just voting, but that is the easiest. While the choice for one office may not have any candidates you like there are usually many offices up for grabs every election. If you take the time to look you may actually find a candidate that you don't despise.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I have to agree 100% with rah. In 2004, I voted in Georgia, for John Kerry. I knew Kerry wasn't going to win, but I wanted my vote to count, and it did. Saying that it won't make a difference is silly. In that case, why not just have everyone stay home in Texas or Illinois or Massachusetts?

It's like a prisoners dilemma. People don't think they can make a difference voting for 3rd Parties, but if they all did, they could affect the election big time. They just are too lazy to take the first step and would rather blame it on everyone else.

If you've already given up on politics because you don't think your candidate will win, then I don't give a **** about your bleating and whining.

[Riesstiu IV]

If anything this government has shown protesting is utterly useless. They don't even care about public opinion anymore. Bush has set up protest zones far away from cameras and congress has shown it is willing to enact extremely unpopular legislation and avoid acting on issues people demanded action on (like stopping the flow of illegal immigration from Mexico). Hell look at this bailout, it's widely unpopular, many people don't understand what it entails but congress and Bush is determined to see it pass.

I think we as Americans have become far less community oriented and friendly, and there is simply widespread indifference. Just look at the protests conducted during Vietnam or the union strikes at the turn of the century, they pale in comparison to the small neutered protests you see today. It's because we live comfortably. Standard of living is still good, there is no draft and the kill rate is low in Iraq and Afghanistan, and culturally we seem to breed a concept that it's okay to be ignorant. Look at all the media that glorifies violent ghetto rap artists, rednecks, and trash culture in general.

I'm certainly part of the problem. I wouldn't dare being politically active because of my field of work. It certainly is cowardly. I really think nothing will happen until the standard of living drops.

[Asher]

I'm certainly part of the problem.

Republicans.

[rah]

Yeah voting for a repug presidential candidate in Illinois is futile, but there are many more offices on the ballot where it isn't futile.

And Asher, I'm sorry they're all ugly now.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by rah

I remember collecting money door to door to legally challange the destruction of state parks. Most of which where eventually saved as a result.

That's not really national politics is it. It's more like "save the tree we love in the park full of homeless people activism".

I can't say I have any problem with that.

I've sat in a jail cell after being arrested while protesting. Many claimed those protests helped change the opinion of the american people.

Yes, they all decided to vote for Nixon.

I've helped build houses for the poor.

That's not really political activism. Training the poor to form a revolutionary army, or organizing them to vote would be.

There is more to the political process than just voting, but that is the easiest. While the choice for one office may not have any candidates you like there are usually many offices up for grabs every election. If you take the time to look you may actually find a candidate that you don't despise.

Again, just because you can find someone to vote for, does not mean that I or others in this thread would.

And you still haven't managed to deal with the obvious objection. There is no point voting if no candidate you like has a chance of winning. That's just common sense.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I have to agree 100% with rah. In 2004, I voted in Georgia, for John Kerry. I knew Kerry wasn't going to win,[..] Saying that it won't make a difference is silly.

You just effectively contradicted yourself. Well done.

It's like a prisoners dilemma. People don't think they can make a difference voting for 3rd Parties, but if they all did, they could affect the election big time.

But under your system, they won't . We know they won't, so talk like this is just idle dreaming. In the very rare cases where a third party is going to do something, everyone knows in advance. If you had PR, then it would be worth voting for a third party every time, but you don't, so it isn't.

Your faith-based political philosophy is amusing.

[OzzyKP]

Aggie

Originally posted by rah
While I don't always agree with Ozzy, at least he's making an effort to fight for what he believes. I respect him for that. While I was quite active when I was younger, he seems to be doing more.

Thanks Rah


As for the substance of this debate I disagree with the notion that "you can't complain if you don't vote". Political dissent is useful, and often more useful than voting (because you can influence the votes of others). One person's vote really doesn't matter all that much, strictly logically absolutely nothing will change if I vote or don't vote this November. (and not just cause I'm planning to vote for a third party). Yet since I turned 18 I haven't missed a single election, not even school board and dog catcher ones. I believe that voting is expressing a preference and while practically I don't have much influence or power in casting one ballot, the right to vote in the aggregate is the most important thing we've got and it is a civic duty to exercise that right.

I don't think it is pessimistic to agree that one vote doesn't make a difference, that is much different than political apathy or thinking our system is broke. Our system works GREAT. Aggie is a fool for thinking he'd have more of a say in his worker's paradise. Of course he no doubt imagines himself the head of the politburo, and to hell with everyone else, so maybe he is right that he'd have more influence then.

Our system works wonderfully, the only problem with it is there are too many damn people. Hundreds of millions of people that also want to be heard means that it is easy for your voice to get drowned out. But if you do your homework and roll up your sleeves you CAN make a difference.

With no money and little real training or connections I have almost single-handedly defeated laws, changed life for people, helped people, changed people's minds, changed business policies, given hope to those without it. My issue is only moderately more popular than Communism, but with much less awareness around it, so while it is very difficult being seen sometimes as part of an obscure and radical movement it is easy to see what change has been made. Real change.

In my years of struggling with this there is much to be frustrated with. But is the system broken? No. Should we be hopeless? No. Just get off your ass and do something.

While the system isn't broken, is there room for improvement? Surely. There is a lot of unfair stuff that makes life difficult for third parties. I'd love to see instant runoff voting and other smart reforms. But we need reforms, not revolution.

[GePap]

Democracy means rule of the "poor, masses, common people" (whichever way one choses to translate Demos) - that means that the ultimate responsibility of governance falls on the citizens. What we have today in the US is citizen abdicating their untimate responsibility and whinning about it.

That's not really political activism. Training the poor to form a revolutionary army, or organizing them to vote would be.

And for someone with such a low opinion of the general population, what exactly do you expect this army of the poor to do after the revolution but to set up another set of ruling overlords? After all, that is what has happened after EVERY violent revolution, which is why violent revolutions keep happening. Perhaps it is time to accept the human condition and work within it?

And you still haven't managed to deal with the obvious objection. There is no point voting if no candidate you like has a chance of winning. That's just common sense.

Sorry, there is nothing more vapid and insidious than "common sense."

What matters in a democracy is the act of a citizen taking direct action in the political process. In voting, a citizen has legitimized the system, which is a point in an of itself, regardless of the winners or loser.

Obviously, for someone like youself that disapproves of the system, taking any action to legitimize it is bad. Unfortunately, you offer no realistic alternative.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


As for the substance of this debate I disagree with the notion that "you can't complain if you don't vote". Political dissent is useful, and often more useful than voting (because you can influence the votes of others). One person's vote really doesn't matter all that much, strictly logically absolutely nothing will change if I vote or don't vote this November. (and not just cause I'm planning to vote for a third party). Yet since I turned 18 I haven't missed a single election, not even school board and dog catcher ones. I believe that voting is expressing a preference and while practically I don't have much influence or power in casting one ballot, the right to vote in the aggregate is the most important thing we've got and it is a civic duty to exercise that right.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GePap
Democracy means rule of the "poor, masses, common people" (whichever way one choses to translate Demos) - that means that the ultimate responsibility of governance falls on the citizens. What we have today in the US is citizen abdicating their untimate responsibility and whinning about it.

How hilarious that you claim to be a Nietzschean and at the same time spew this crap. You shame that poor man by sporting him as an avatar.

Noobs who associate with philosophers they don't understand.

And for someone with such a low opinion of the general population, what exactly do you expect this army of the poor to do after the revolution but to set up another set of ruling overlords? After all, that is what has happened after EVERY violent revolution, which is why violent revolutions keep happening. Perhaps it is time to accept the human condition and work within it?

You might want to try reading again. I never suggested those were things I'd do, just that these were more appropriately labelled "political activism" than building homes for charity. I don't see that as being an unreasonable point, which you could have understood if you had read the post properly.

Sorry, there is nothing more vapid and insidious than "common sense."

Except your posts.

What matters in a democracy is the act of a citizen taking direct action in the political process. In voting, a citizen has legitimized the system, which is a point in an of itself, regardless of the winners or loser.

Complete crud. No-one legitimizes anything by voting. People may vote for cynical reasons or merely defensively. Merely doing something, without reference to intention is not sufficient to legitimate anything. For example, the simple act of buying something under threat of punishment for theft no more legitimates capitalism for the buyer than not buying something (he simply may have no other effective means of acquiring food). Mere action does not imply consent. Similarly, withholding one's vote does not imply delegitimization of the system – people might just not vote because they are lazy or would rather go fishing on election day.

Perhaps if you thought before you spewed tiresome democratic propaganda, then you might have something interesting to say.

Obviously, for someone like youself that disapproves of the system, taking any action to legitimize it is bad. Unfortunately, you offer no realistic alternative.

Where did I say that? Learn to read, bro. You're simply making **** up.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by OzzyKP

I believe that voting is expressing a preference and while practically I don't have much influence or power in casting one ballot, the right to vote in the aggregate is the most important thing we've got and it is a civic duty to exercise that right.

No individual has the right to vote in the aggregate, and no aggregate has the right to vote as an aggregate (a community having one vote). In democracies, we individuals vote as individuals. Not voting is also expressing a preference: the judgement that it isn't worth the bother, or the judgement that democracy is a load of tosh, or that one would rather spend the day fishing or suchlike (we can't say that a choice not to vote is a choice to delegitimize the system any more than we can say that voting legitimizes it – when GePap realizes this, he will be ashamed of himself for saying the opposite).

You're missing the point of the argument, which is: what purpose is there in voting if one's vote will not effect the outcome.

That's a pretty simple question, and as usual people here have the greatest difficulty in answering it.

Here's a real case. When I was first eligible to vote, I lived in a district that was predominantly rural and a "safe" district for the New Zealand National (Conservative) Party. No rational person who knew about the area and was aware of the polls could believe anything other than that Roger McCLay, the National candidate, would win. My turning up to vote against him would make zero difference. If nobody other than National voters had turned up that day, it would have made zero difference. Labour voters in that district might as well not have existed for the purposes of the election. Therefore, there was no point in voting.

Many people find themselves in a similar situation, since they actively dislike both major parties and do not wish to soil themselves by voting for either one. Perhaps they would prefer that Mr Barr or Mr Nader were elected, but we already know that is not going to happen (anyone who says we don't know is a kook, and probably a Ron Paul supporter to boot).

Turning up to vote for a third party candidate has about as much effect as expressing interest in purchasing something when you don't have the cash and will never have it. You'll notice that the economy takes no notice of such people (in fact, the economy can supply lesser substitute goods, but the winner take all structure of elections does not allow for this).

Given these facts, it makes little sense to criticize people for being apathetic. It's not apathy per se, but just a recognition that one's time is better spent elsewhere than on currently hopeless tasks.

I don't think it is pessimistic to agree that one vote doesn't make a difference, that is much different than political apathy or thinking our system is broke. Our system works GREAT. Aggie is a fool for thinking he'd have more of a say in his worker's paradise. Of course he no doubt imagines himself the head of the politburo, and to hell with everyone else, so maybe he is right that he'd have more influence then.

I have zero interest in personal political power. The only thing I'd possibly give that up for is for one day if given the opportunity to try and execute Kenny G for crimes against humanity.

That one vote makes no difference in many situations is a fact.

Our system works wonderfully, the only problem with it is there are too many damn people. Hundreds of millions of people that also want to be heard means that it is easy for your voice to get drowned out. But if you do your homework and roll up your sleeves you CAN make a difference.

With no money and little real training or connections I have almost single-handedly defeated laws, changed life for people, helped people, changed people's minds, changed business policies, given hope to those without it. My issue is only moderately more popular than Communism, but with much less awareness around it, so while it is very difficult being seen sometimes as part of an obscure and radical movement it is easy to see what change has been made. Real change.

But you are asking for something small. That's all fine and dandy if that's your thing, but for many people it is not.

While the system isn't broken, is there room for improvement? Surely. There is a lot of unfair stuff that makes life difficult for third parties. I'd love to see instant runoff voting and other smart reforms. But we need reforms, not revolution.

How likely are you to get real reforms without a revolution or a threat of one. For example, do you believe that either the Dems or Republicans could be persuaded to give up their duopoly? If so, how? Your own constitution makes this virtually impossible. Some sort of revolutionary change (not necessarily violent, but a sweeping away of the constitution and its replacement by something else) would seem to be almost necessary.