Don't vote!

[mj2002]

And speak up. Be heard. Nag them. Get your friends with similar outlooks to do the same.

It takes FIVE MINUTES to type up an email, phone them or such. You want get the reps.. but they DO listen to the trends from their voters. They have to. If you put it in a public forum..they can't avoid it. (That was how I embarrassed county reps who were lying.. I pointed out their 'mistakes' in a venue they couldn't avoid. He doesn't like me.. he's not too happy to see me over holidays.. but my older brother says he doesn't 'forget' historical facts anymore.)

If you don't like the process.. be part of those of us who want to reform/repair it. Stepping out of it.. only enables those that abuse it.

You know how CLOSE the 2000 election was? It was HOW many recounts? It could have easily come down to a few boxes of absentee ballots in something like less than a half dozen precincts. Bush won one state by literally the skin of his teeth but it wasn't as big as Florida. You can say it 'doesn't work.. so I won't 'play'. Would you like a thank you note from the Koch Brothers? Because that attitude does more to reinforce the process in place than fixing it)

I don't want to sound like a bitch, but it is exactly this attitude that the current system thrives on. The perception that your vote makes a difference. I'm looking at the last 20-40 years when it comes to the issues I mentioned, where exactly did your vote make a difference then? Have we combated climate change? No, we're still making it worse. Income inequality? Still making it worse. Corporatism? More thriving than any time in history. You can keep riling each other up over close elections and big colorful campaigns, but at the end of the day the big problems that we face keep getting ignored.

I'll happily admit that certain things do change for the better, but that's mostly due to old people dying out. For the three points I mentioned though, I have yet to see any evidence that "just trying really hard to make a difference" actually works. From my point of view, that needs a revolution. The ever increasing distrust in government demonstrates this clearly.

[Callie Del Noire]

I don't want to sound like a bitch, but it is exactly this attitude that the current system thrives on. The perception that your vote makes a difference. I'm looking at the last 20-40 years when it comes to the issues I mentioned, where exactly did your vote make a difference then? Have we combated climate change? No, we're still making it worse. Income inequality? Still making it worse. Corporatism? More thriving than any time in history. You can keep riling each other up over close elections and big colorful campaigns, but at the end of the day the big problems that we face keep getting ignored.

I'll happily admit that certain things do change for the better, but that's mostly due to old people dying out. For the three points I mentioned though, I have yet to see any evidence that "just trying really hard to make a difference" actually works. From my point of view, that needs a revolution. The ever increasing distrust in government demonstrates this clearly.

And I could say that is the attitude that has made the current corruption and inertia in the system continue on. You don't want to participate in the system for fear of 'enabling' it. You are also propogating the problem by NOT helping hold the people in their elected positions accountable. You start small.. work up, speak out, and pay ATTENTION.

Sitting on the sidelines and wringing your hands..not helping. And no offense, but tearing it down in a massive revolution.. more often than not seems to make a bigger mess than reform does.

I'm done for the day, since I get really angry about this issue. So, I'm out for a day, or more.

[TaintedAndDelish]

Well, let's say that enough people got on the "protest and don't vote" bandwagon to break the system. Do you think it would be harder to rebuild a unified country from that point or easier? Would the country be at greater risk of breaking up or being taken over?

As for the effectiveness of voting, I don't have any figures to show, but if I'm not mistaken, it was just this that got Obama elected - citizens who don't normally vote suddenly voting.

Also, consider this:


North Korea's Kim Jong-un elected to assembly without single vote against

These folks were forced to vote for the "correct" candidate even though their vote would not be counted. They have no say at all like those of us who choose not to vote. I'm under the impression that they are quite content with being told who will be elected and how happy they should be about it.

[Zakharra]

As for not voting, again, the whole point is to delegitimize the results of an election. This is not some revolutionary strategy that I just thought of. This happens all the time. In many referenda and elections (even national), the opposition parties call on their members to not vote, because the outcome is already fixed. We have the same situation, except that it's set up a little bit smarter here. Instead manipulating the outcome of the vote, the politicians themselves are where the manipulation takes place. If your election is a fair game, by all means vote. However these elections aren't fair game, they're rigged.

  The problem with the underlined part is it -doesn't- delegitimatize the results. If only about 50% or less of the voting registered population votes, say even as low as 5%, guess what? THAT percentage is who chooses who wins the election. It doesn't matter how low the percentage is, just that the percentage  that votes. The end result is a smaller percentage of the population voting who runs the country. Those who can vote and don't, do not have any reason to bitch and complain about it. If you want a voice in the system, then get involved either by voting or running for office. If you don't,  then keep your mouth shut.  It's like someone who complains about never winning the lottery, but never buys a lottery ticket. You can't have a chance at winning if you never buy a ticket.  The same thing with politics. Unless you get involved by voting and/or running for an office, you have no real reason to complain about its problems.

[mj2002]

And I could say that is the attitude that has made the current corruption and inertia in the system continue on. You don't want to participate in the system for fear of 'enabling' it. You are also propogating the problem by NOT helping hold the people in their elected positions accountable. You start small.. work up, speak out, and pay ATTENTION.

Sitting on the sidelines and wringing your hands..not helping. And no offense, but tearing it down in a massive revolution.. more often than not seems to make a bigger mess than reform does.

I'm done for the day, since I get really angry about this issue. So, I'm out for a day, or more.

I have no idea why you're getting angry over this, but that's your choice. You could indeed say that the attitude that I'm arguing for is responsible for the current situation. I'd kindly ask you to back this up though, because it seems to be baseless for me. When it comes to this particular topic, I am not aware of any movement that has forwarded this strategy in recent history. There are many examples of oppositions (in African and South East Asian countries) that have boycotted elections because they were not being fair. The strategy to make 'our' elections rigged may be different, but the fact remains that the game is rigged.

As for revolutions, of course it depends on how you go about this, they can have many different outcomes. The ones with dramatic after effects and chaos you'll hear most about. The other ones not so much. Sometimes you need a big change to improve current affairs. It gets worse before it gets better.

As for the effectiveness of voting, I don't have any figures to show, but if I'm not mistaken, it was just this that got Obama elected - citizens who don't normally vote suddenly voting.

I understand what you're saying, but you're making the argument for me. People voted, they got a democrat that they all wanted. Nothing changes. This is exactly the problem.

  The problem with the underlined part is it -doesn't- delegitimatize the results. If only about 50% or less of the voting registered population votes, say even as low as 5%, guess what? THAT percentage is who chooses who wins the election. It doesn't matter how low the percentage is, just that the percentage  that votes. The end result is a smaller percentage of the population voting who runs the country. Those who can vote and don't, do not have any reason to bitch and complain about it. If you want a voice in the system, then get involved either by voting or running for office. If you don't,  then keep your mouth shut.  It's like someone who complains about never winning the lottery, but never buys a lottery ticket. You can't have a chance at winning if you never buy a ticket.  The same thing with politics. Unless you get involved by voting and/or running for an office, you have no real reason to complain about its problems.

I disagree. Your premise assumes that one can only complain if you agree that the current paradigm is the only system by which you can legitimately select leaders. I don't accept this premise. It only works if the system is fair. It's not fair, the game is rigged.

[TaintedAndDelish]

I understand what you're saying, but you're making the argument for me. People voted, they got a democrat that they all wanted. Nothing changes. This is exactly the problem.

I have to disagree there. The people cast their votes and influenced who would be elected next. That's... not a problem, that's a good thing. Each vote was close to insignificant, but collectively, they made a difference.

The issue of not having a decent candidate to vote for has nothing to do with the presidential elections, but has everything to do with the smaller elections from which the candidates come. I think this is where the large corporation owners get it right, and your average person fails in an epic way. Their success is no accident.

[Zakharra]

I disagree. Your premise assumes that one can only complain if you agree that the current paradigm is the only system by which you can legitimately select leaders. I don't accept this premise. It only works if the system is fair. It's not fair, the game is rigged.

Fair or not, it's the only system we have. Either you take part in it one way or another, ie voting or running for office, or you are a outsider complaining about you willingly gave up. Reform starts from the inside. that means you can either make your voice heard within the system or it will be ignored. If you will not participate in it, then expect your voice to be ignored like it should be.

[mj2002]

Fair or not, it's the only system we have. Either you take part in it one way or another, ie voting or running for office, or you are a outsider complaining about you willingly gave up. Reform starts from the inside. that means you can either make your voice heard within the system or it will be ignored. If you will not participate in it, then expect your voice to be ignored like it should be.

You take part in it, or you take it apart. This system is broken and its not going to fix itself, in my point of view. One doesn't need to be content with what you have now.

[TaintedAndDelish]

While the system maybe broken in some ways, I don't think your proposed remedy works either. It's been demonstrated already that there has been a widely fluctuating population of voters over the years and yet, this has not done anything more than to further empower those who do vote.

You spoke of protests in conjunction with refusal to vote, but in the absence of such protests, a lack of voters will not break the system. Ultimately, the politicians will vote for themselves, and in the US, each state will cast its own electoral votes with or without citizen votes, so I see this solution as being impossible and ineffective.

If are going to argue the plausibility of breaking the system by not voting further, you might need to support your argument better or explain in better detail how it could work. That portion of your argument seems to be missing.

"By voting, you are becoming complicit in a system that merely functions to serve the needs of politicians, corporations and 'the elite'.

Complicit -  involved with others in an illegal activity or wrongdoing.

Voting for one of the two or three candidates does not make you complicit with the sleazy activities of other voters. As a voter, you need to choose which of the candidates we are better off with. Candidates are complex and will never support each and every issue that you hold dear.

While this serves the needs of billionaires, it also serves my needs as a citizen.

Issues such as climate change, income inequality/disparity and economic exploitation remain unaddressed by (our current generation of) politicians.

It takes more than just a president to change these things. You need people in congress who see things similarly too. There needs to be enough of them in order to effect the needed change.

As much as I detest Obama ( and I hated Romney too), I think he's actually addressed a few things that I personally wanted to see fixed. He will not address all the things that I would like to see changed, but perhaps a future president and congress will piece by piece.

[TapVallian]

Voting is your voice? The options you have are 'yes' and 'amen', how does that do you any good?

As for not voting, again, the whole point is to delegitimize the results of an election. This is not some revolutionary strategy that I just thought of. This happens all the time. In many referenda and elections (even national), the opposition parties call on their members to not vote, because the outcome is already fixed. We have the same situation, except that it's set up a little bit smarter here. Instead manipulating the outcome of the vote, the politicians themselves are where the manipulation takes place. If your election is a fair game, by all means vote. However these elections aren't fair game, they're rigged.The problem is, as I've explained several times now. Participating in the process means you perpetuate the status quo. I'm all for voting, if the process is fair. The process however, is not fair. It hasn't been fair and it won't be fair. It needs an overhaul and I don't think that's going to come by itself. It needs an outside influence to force change. Not participating in the charade is a start.

Yes voting is your voice.  I don't know what they have in your country but "amen" has never been a choice on a US ballot that I've seen.  Maybe you were trying to be funny? 

When you are talking about issues like global warming and other things you mentioned in this thread you get them on the ballot and the vote is yes or no.  The issue isn't not voting, the issue should be how to get the stuff you think is important on the ballot.  Not voting will never accomplish that.  Then someone has to convince the voters to vote for the things you talk about.

If you're talking about elections in some country with only one party, or one candidate to vote for then sure, don't vote.  But in most countries not voting doesn't do anything.  Certainly not delegitimize. 

That term when applied to elections is ludicrous to me.  Even if a bunch of people don't vote, who decides if it's all of a sudden delegitimized? And what then?  So a bunch of "activists" who think they're changing the world by not voting sit around in a coffee shop and talk about how they didn't vote, didn't perpetuate the status quo and how the election is now delegitimized according to them.  And then what??

I just don't see how that means anything at all, or will change anything at all.

You talk about a lot of things that need changed, or fixed or continued work on in this thread.  I don't think anyone here has disagreed with that part.

[Chris Brady]

If you vote, your contribution towards the candidate of your choice is n>0
If you don't vote, your contribution towards the candidate of your choice is n=0
Also, if you don't vote, every vote for the candidates that you don't like is increased by some amount n>0

So, by not voting, you are contributing in some way to every candidate that you don't like.

But guess what.  Those people you're voting for?  They're showpieces.  They don't do anything of value for your country of choice.  Most tenures (like say the American one) is about 4 years on average, how much can you do, to make your country better.  It's too short a time period.  Take for example the Black Rights movement.  It started back in the American Civil War and didn't get fully implemented until the what, 1960s?  And that's just one part of it.

The role, the job of a politician is to do one thing.  To get elected.  Nothing more.  They say, promise anything to have it happen.  That's all they have to do.  Get elected.

[TapVallian]

This system is broken and its not going to fix itself, in my point of view. One doesn't need to be content with what you have now.

This is all true. ^^

Not voting is not one of the ways to fix it.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say that not voting helps the very people and systems you are against, more so than voting. 

If you aren't willing to try to get involved and change things from the inside like Zakharra said because you don't think it will help or its not enough then you're probably looking for something much more dramatic such as armed rebellion for the type of changes you deem necessary.  Either way, I still can't see how abstaining from the vote is going to help anything.

It kind of feels like the not voting is more of a way for the non voters to feel like they aren't responsible for anything, even though they aren't actually doing anything to help improve things.

Can you please explain how the not voting theory works to effect the changes you want?  Take me through step by step in the process.  I'm being serious here, not sarcastic.  Maybe I don't see something that's there.

1. Lots of people don't vote
2. ?

[Callie Del Noire]

I have no idea why you're getting angry over this, but that's your choice. You could indeed say that the attitude that I'm arguing for is responsible for the current situation. I'd kindly ask you to back this up though, because it seems to be baseless for me. When it comes to this particular topic, I am not aware of any movement that has forwarded this strategy in recent history. There are many examples of oppositions (in African and South East Asian countries) that have boycotted elections because they were not being fair. The strategy to make 'our' elections rigged may be different, but the fact remains that the game is rigged.

As for revolutions, of course it depends on how you go about this, they can have many different outcomes. The ones with dramatic after effects and chaos you'll hear most about. The other ones not so much. Sometimes you need a big change to improve current affairs. It gets worse before it gets better.
I understand what you're saying, but you're making the argument for me. People voted, they got a democrat that they all wanted. Nothing changes. This is exactly the problem.

I disagree. Your premise assumes that one can only complain if you agree that the current paradigm is the only system by which you can legitimately select leaders. I don't accept this premise. It only works if the system is fair. It's not fair, the game is rigged.

Why am I angry?

I had FIVE airmen from a section of Florida that literally counted for more than the rest of the stet in the 2004 election. It came down to something like a literal handful of absentee votes that won Bush the state of Florida. A better case for every vote counting couldn't be made.  They didn't vote and COMPLAINED for months before I chewed them out.

You say it doesn't work? You say you see no reason to take part and let the process fall apart? That AFTER all the shitty cliques and cadres lose control of the machine you'll step up and help rebuild. 

Bullshit. Inactivity is learned. You, by your inaction, enable the status quo as much as the lobbyists, the small minded traditionalists who fear change, the power mongers and the rest. Apathetic non voters have been using this excuse since the SIXTIES. That attitude changes nothing.

So you can affect change on the national party level in a single election cycle. Boo-hoo. This problem has been around for decades. Do you honestly expect it to magically disappear in one election? My older brother has run for office, I've seen enough of the BS and scamming going on to understand how deep the rot is set in the unelected leadership of the parties. THOSE men and women appreciate your attitude since you aren't part of their clique and the fewer rivals they have the less work it takes to do things.

Your way of "making it right" after everything falls into war and conflict. That has a cost. Blood, lives and souls. Do you honestly think that if things fell part here that it would be a magical moment like when the walls fell down in Berlin?

It will be blood in the streets. Civil War (Whata fucking oxymoron that is). Do you really think the powers of the status quo will flich from protecting what is theirs? That thousand won't starve when the infrastructure falls apart. That folks like the Koch Brothers won't use security as a hook to win more out of civil unrest?

Considering how many personal liberties I've seen sacrificed for 'security' and 'safety' in the last 14 years, I very much doubt you'd get more input in what comes out of civil war.

I very much doubt what will follow will be anything that the founding fathers will recognize. We owe the past for their sacrifices and loss, and the future for what we were entrusted with to leave them.  What do we owe! To pass on a world we've honestly and genuinely fought to make better by our actions, not inaction.

That is why 'non-voting' and other acts of apathy infuriate me. We have failed in our duty to the past and are failing our future.

[Zakharra]

You take part in it, or you take it apart. This system is broken and its not going to fix itself, in my point of view. One doesn't need to be content with what you have now.

  If by taking it apart you mean armed rebellion, then be prepared to eat a lot of bullets and see a LOT of people die.. Those in power rarely give it up willingly if it's not done by the legal voting process. That seems to be what you're advocating; armed rebellion because you are not willing to work within the system to reform it.  Instead you want to tear it apart from the outside. That way can only result in a lot of blood, tears and souls spent, and you're not guaranteed that the side you want will win either.

[mia h]

I can't remember who it was, but there is a logical case for not voting.

The only valuable vote is the one that decides the outcome of an election.
If you vote for a losing candidate your vote,the effort needed for you to vote and the effort needed to count that vote are all a complete waste.
But if you vote for the winning candidate it's no better. Lets say the winning candidate in an election wins by 5000 votes, 4999 of those votes are a waste of effort because they don't change the outcome, the first winning vote is the only one that makes a difference so is the only truly valuable and worthwhile vote.

Given the number of people eligible to vote in any election the odds that you are going to cast that first winning vote are negligible, so the logical course of action is not to vote.

[TheGlyphstone]

I can't remember who it was, but there is a logical case for not voting.

The only valuable vote is the one that decides the outcome of an election.
If you vote for a losing candidate your vote,the effort needed for you to vote and the effort needed to count that vote are all a complete waste.
But if you vote for the winning candidate it's no better. Lets say the winning candidate in an election wins by 5000 votes, 4999 of those votes are a waste of effort because they don't change the outcome, the first winning vote is the only one that makes a difference so is the only truly valuable and worthwhile vote.

Given the number of people eligible to vote in any election the odds that you are going to cast that first winning vote are negligible, so the logical course of action is not to vote.

Flawed logic, because it ignores opportunity cost. The time/resources required to vote are equivalently negligible, and must be weighted against the odds of 'mattering' (as you choose to put it). If, even with your .02% or less odds of being the decisive vote, that is still the most productive use of 30 seconds of your life (takes me less than that to fill out a mail-in ballot), then logic dictates you should vote.


The only reason to outright refuse to vote is laziness. It's the civic equivalent of kicking over the sandcastle and storming home with your bucket and shovel because your castle wasn't the best; if you can't have your outcome, you'll refuse to play at all and blame everyone who stays after you leave.

[Valthazar]

If you have the right to vote, and voluntarily not doing so, then why complain about the way things are?

[Yukina]

I can't remember who it was, but there is a logical case for not voting.

The only valuable vote is the one that decides the outcome of an election.
If you vote for a losing candidate your vote,the effort needed for you to vote and the effort needed to count that vote are all a complete waste.
But if you vote for the winning candidate it's no better. Lets say the winning candidate in an election wins by 5000 votes, 4999 of those votes are a waste of effort because they don't change the outcome, the first winning vote is the only one that makes a difference so is the only truly valuable and worthwhile vote.

Given the number of people eligible to vote in any election the odds that you are going to cast that first winning vote are negligible, so the logical course of action is not to vote.

There is a hole in that logic though. Without the other "useless" votes as you had called them, the last winning vote doesn't exist. Also, not voting would just lead the side you would have wanted to succeed just closer to failure. It may be a smaller percent of increase to the failure, though it is an increase nonetheless. I could go further with the points of "becoming your own candidate" or "trying to campaign for more votes to your side", but so many others in this thread (such as Oniya) have done a better job explaining these points than I could.

[Beguile's Mistress]

You might want to also consider the effect the number of total votes cast has on further decision making processes in government.  The difference between the votes for each candidate sends a message to those elected about what the voters care about.  If you don't vote you tell the government you don't care because they look at the number of registered voters in a district and compare that to the number of votes cast.  After one election I checked the county voter statistics and saw that only 27% of the registered voters actually went to the polls.  That means that 73% of those registered didn't care enough to vote.  That doesn't even take into account those eligible to vote who didn't care enough to register.  No matter what your reasons are for not registering and/or not voting you are seen as apathetic and not worth the notice of those in power.

As someone else said - if you don't vote don't complain.

[mj2002]

As someone else said - if you don't vote don't complain.

This is flawed logic, as it assumes the current system is functioning correctly. If it was, then I could support this. But let's face it, it's not functioning correctly at all. Voting just means giving the opportunity to steal money away from everyone to one politician, instead of the other. If there were real and viable alternatives, then by all means vote.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Then make yourself the real and viable alternative and run for office.  You may not win the first time but there are some who will vote for you and if you keep on trying there will be more each time.  Develop a strong platform built on the issues you see as important and start talking to people.  Attend meetings and get people familiar with your name and your face.  Find out what is important to them and help them achieve their goals.  Build a constituency for yourself and get the backing you'll need to get elected. 

Or stay at home.  Don't vote.  Don't do anything but hope things will change and complain because you don't like the way things are.

This is the choice that has been in front of a lot of people over the years and those who care enough go out and make things change and get elected to office to facilitate that.  Not all candidates are crooks and if you look hard enough you'll learn which ones are good enough to vote for.

[Valthazar]

This is flawed logic, as it assumes the current system is functioning correctly. If it was, then I could support this.

Are you referring to voter fraud?  What do you mean by the current system not functioning correctly?

[mia h]

Flawed logic, because it ignores opportunity cost. The time/resources required to vote are equivalently negligible, and must be weighted against the odds of 'mattering' (as you choose to put it). If, even with your .02% or less odds of being the decisive vote, that is still the most productive use of 30 seconds of your life (takes me less than that to fill out a mail-in ballot), then logic dictates you should vote.

Took a while to track who came up with the idea it was Anthony Downs in An Economic Theory of Democracy, so I think he hand a clue about opportunity costs. While the costs might have change a little bit since the 1950's the basic point is still correct, the only vote that matters is the single winning vote everything else is a waste of resources.

Downs is correct in that there is a huge overall cost when only the opinion of a single person matters, the problem is that you can only find out who that person was after the event.

The only reason to outright refuse to vote is laziness. It's the civic equivalent of kicking over the sandcastle and storming home with your bucket and shovel because your castle wasn't the best; if you can't have your outcome, you'll refuse to play at all and blame everyone who stays after you leave.

Your analogy is way off the mark; it's like not turning up to the sandcastle contest because everyone is given a standardized bucket and spade so the name of the winner is drawn out of a hat and has nothing with the sandcastle. You have to put in the effort but being the winner is a matter of blind luck.

Then if you look at Congress and how the boundaries are drawn up there are maybe 20-30 that don't have built in majorities. Which mean in the other 400+ districts not only is voting for the minority party a waste of individual effort but the entire election is a waste because the result has been predetermined by some lines on a map.

[Valthazar]

Then if you look at Congress and how the boundaries are drawn up there are maybe 20-30 that don't have built in majorities. Which mean in the other 400+ districts not only is voting for the minority party a waste of individual effort but the entire election is a waste because the result has been predetermined by some lines on a map.

What do you mean by built in majorities? If enough people in those districts vote for the minority party, they will change their political orientation, potentially over time.  That's premise of a democratic republic.

[Callie Del Noire]

What do you mean by built in majorities? If enough people in those districts vote for the minority party, they will change their political orientation, potentially over time.  That's premise of a democratic republic.

The problem is.. Gerrymandering is very very good in some districts. Texas went from being a 'Blue state in 20 years' to 'Never going Blue' in the last redistricting event. of course most of that was due to the recent Supreme Court decision.

That being said.. if you don't play in the game.. speak up, vote, inquire, investigate and be heard..well.. your opinions dont (pardon my french) fucking matter do they? I've heard party members (on both sides) ask the first question as 'Are they organized and participate?'. If the answer is 'no'..well then why should EITHER party give two spits about them?

I've said it before.. and I'll say it again and again and again...

You don't VOTE.. you enable the process that is place at LEAST as those who vote 'yellow dog democrat/republican/whatever'.