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

[rah]

My response to them would be, If you have a problem try to do something about it instead of just sitting on your ass whinning.
It's not me that will be ignoring it, it will be the system that ignores it.
If you don't vote, your opinion is worth less because politicians don't care about what you think because you won't vote for them. (now if you're active on the side, they may be fooled into thinking they have to listen) That sounds like good common sense, not ignorance.

[Lancer]

If you see no chance of eather party to resolve the problem you're complaining about so you don't vote, should you then stop complaining?

[Aeson]

Politicians don't know if you've voted or not. (They know if you contributed or not.)

What you said though is that people who do not vote do not have the right to complain, nor should they. That is ignorant. No way you can try to spin it rah. Just give up and admit they have the right to complain, and that if their complaints are valid, they certainly should complain and those complaints should be listened to.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by rah
My response to them would be, If you have a problem try to do something about it instead of just sitting on your ass whinning.
It's not me that will be ignoring it, it will be the system that ignores it.
If you don't vote, your opinion is worth less because politicians don't care about what you think because you won't vote for them. (now if you're active on the side, they may be fooled into thinking they have to listen) That sounds like good common sense, not ignorance.

That might be true if you think like all the other idiots. Then again they might just listen to bankers instead.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by rah
Even if it won't change the outcome if I vote for McCain in Illinois, it still provides information.

Your vote has virtually no additional informational value given the vast amount of political polling that is done these days. If your state is going to swing, the pollsters will know long before election day. That's just the way it is now.

Your whole arguement is that you have something better to do with your time, like it's going to take all day for you to vote.

That's not my whole argument, but it's pretty obviously true in a case where your vote won't do jack.

You have also said that it doesn't matter but you seem to have said the oposite also

I have many arguments. My general anti-democratic argument has not been developed in this thread (things went the other way), so I was arguing with Ben over whether it was worth voting when it would be a landslide either way.

so which is it? Meaningless or meaningful. IF ANY race is meaningful then not voting makes you a lazy ass or an uncaring ass, whichever is immaterial to me.

One can imagine elections where one's vote will make a difference and where one of the candidates is appealing. I'm not going to rule out the existence of such elections. On the other hand, like Aeson, I can see little merit in any candidate that has a chance of winning, and therefore choose not to vote. And in general, there is the current phenomenon of focus grouping and so on that means that elections are exercises in brand consumption rather than popular governance, so the whole thing has become increasingly pointless.

If you have time, watch the entire BBC documentary "The Century of the Self" on Google Video, particularly the last episode. It's hard to have any faith in democracy after watching that (or if you knew about it beforehand, as I did).

And lazy asses or uncaring asses have no right to complain. Truth, no matter how many times you say otherwise, or claim your imaginary victories.

Of course they do. You might want to think about what you are saying, which is, in effect, that if someone does not vote, then the government has the right to do absolutely anything to them. Surely, as a Republican, you cannot believe that, and if you don't, I win that point.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's nice that they take notice of them, but they don't have any effect. At least they don't have any effect that is noticeably greater than not voting.

I'm working from the assumption that voting is a civic obligation. You are very right that not voting sends the same message, but it's not an acceptable option for folks who believe we have a responsibility to vote. That's my personal position, although I would tell anyone if they do not want to vote, that they shouldn't because the fewer people who vote, the greater the influence for everyone who does vote.

For example, a lot of Republicans are pissed off with their party, so they could protest vote for the Libertarian party, hoping that the Republicans would see the transference of votes and change their future policies. But you could do the same by sending your congressman an email saying you won't vote for his "communist" policies, and then not voting at all. The Republicans will still be deprived of the vote, and that's all they care about. You don't necessarily need to have a third party to have a protest.

Very true. If there were only two parties (which isn't the case in Canada), I would say vote for the one closest to your beliefs and then write in to complain.

Proportional representation changes all this.

Except for the fact that you lose the concept of a riding corresponding to a geographical area. You lose representation rather then gaining representation, unless you increase the number of members of parliament.

The other problem is that you will get parliamentarians elected, who have never been chosen by the people. It's bad enough here that the prime minister is never elected as such by the people of Canada, but it's even worse if the only chance for the people to have their say for their selection is denied to them. I think every parliamentarian should be responsible to the people, and not to the party for their position.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Agathon


Your vote has virtually no additional informational value given the vast amount of political polling that is done these days. If your state is going to swing, the pollsters will know long before election day. That's just the way it is now.

I liked the poll that said Obama was going to beat Hillary in New Hampshire.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Except for the fact that you lose the concept of a riding corresponding to a geographical area. You lose representation rather then gaining representation, unless you increase the number of members of parliament.

Wrong.

New Zealand's system has 60 members chosen from ridings, plus another sixty to make up the proportions. Most ridings will have at least two members who reside and have electorate offices there, so if you don't want to bother one, you can bother the other.

The other problem is that you will get parliamentarians elected, who have never been chosen by the people.

Wrong again. Each party must publish a list of candidates before the election, from which their members who make up the proportions are chosen in strict order. If you do not like a person on that list, you do not give your party vote to that party.

This is no worse than the Westminster system which allows parties to run controversial candidates in "safe" ridings, such that everyone in the other 100 or so ridings does not get a chance to vote against them. At least if you hate any candidate that a party is running, you can punish it by voting for the opposition list, which will cause the former direct harm no matter which riding you are voting in.