With OH and 66Sexy swapping book recs and elph throwing around phrases like "anarcho-syndicalism" I should concede right from the start that you guys are much better informed about political science than me. Nonetheless, I disagree with a lot of ideas being put forward in this thread:-
i) The impact of not voting:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls
Voting for anyone is voting for the lesser of x evils because they are all villians. Stop voting and demand better candidates. Thanks.
|
^ Perhaps unintentionally DWV seems to be implying a connection between "Stop voting" and "Demand better candidates." Actually, you can vote and demand better candidates too. Furthurmore, if people consistently vote for the best candidate offered to them, the candidates themselves will realize that the better they are, the more they are likely to win. Surely not voting just tells the candidate, "Most people aren't paying attention, so I can do what I like."
In the 2016 US election, the popular vote was approx: Republican: 53 million - Democrats: 56 million - Non-voters: 100 million
In this case the effect of not voting was to give disproportionate power of representation to Trump's fanatical base. AFAIK it didn't achieve anything loftier, like leaders questioning the whole oligarcial process whereby they are at the top. No one on t.v. has said, "OH didn't vote for me. What am I doing wrong?"
Another argument in favour of not voting has been the idea that your vote won't change anything. But when they're all put together, votes do have an effect. I've mentioned elsewhere how voting has achieved some huge results: the end of prohibition, the first Afro-American president, Hitler's rise to power and Britain heading into Brexit. All those things were arrived at by people voting for them. Historically, what has been advanced by not voting?
Finally, if your vote were not important, why is it that in Georgia, Kansas and North Dakota Republican governors are risking legal jeopardy in order to suppress your vote?
ii) Why is "the lesser of two evils" approach so criticised?
Quote:
Originally Posted by [MERIT]
By this edict, only Democrats and Republicans deserve votes, regardless of how sh*tty they are. Do you see the problem with this? You're perpetuating that "lesser of two evils" bullsh*t.
|
^ Rather like saying, "Let's discuss that sh*tty boring Blues music," aren't you prempting a debate, [MERIT]? 66Sexy also seems to be stomping in advance on the idea of voting for a lesser evil when he posts:-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 66Sexy
If you vote for someone you don't agree with you are still voting for every single thing they have or will do.
|
^ I would dispute this notion. Are you confusing voting with marriage, 66Sexy? When people get married they often make a vow before their god about sexual intimacy for life. Voting is less of a commitment, but you've made it sound even more portentious. IMO, when you vote you're not saying much more than, "At the moment, I'd prefer this guy to be my representative." If the guy disappoints you in office, wait four years and vote for someone else. Nobody's going to blame you retroactively if you voted for Al Franklin.
Although I owe him a debt of gratitude, I know Frownland is big enough to take this comment in good spirit: I liked your Douglas Adams quote about lizards always being in charge, but it's actually true, if you don't vote for a lizard, then the wrong lizard may win. In the US the incumbant lizard and his spineless minions are promoting the use of fossil fuels, stoking racial hatred, undermining truth, democracy and Obamacare, etc. If I were an American, I would so vote for a lizard who promised to reverse those trends.
iii) Supporting anarchy.
I think the popularity of anarchy has been the thing to surprise me most. I suspect it may sound exciting on the pages of a textbook or political tract, but in reality it devolves into a special kind of Hell. I've read about anarchy on the ground - in the Congo, in the Darian Gap and in war-torn Rwanda. What happens in these places is that armed bands of marauders prowl around killing, raping, kidnapping children and stealing. I don't see the appeal of that tbh: I prefer a political hierarchy in place that will, above all, protect the vulnerable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 66Sexy
Agreed. I don't think the human race can ever truly evolve until the majority realize that nobody should ever hold power over anybody else, no exceptions, no compromise. Even parent/child power dynamics still program children to acquiesce to power dynamics in general.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by OccultHawk
I do not want or ask to be led. Therefore anyone who tries to be my leader, anyone who claims the right to govern me or claims to be a part of my government in anyway, is acting immorally.
|
^ Finally, these comments are a puzzle to me. Don't we all, day-to-day, benefit from having some hierarchical systems in place, with an ultimate leader at the top? To give some concrete examples of the benefits of allowing someone to have power over you: a lot of the stuff I've learned is because I submitted to the authority of a teacher. Every time I'm in a car, I'm pleased that the police are forcing us all to drive on the same side of the road, and every time I go to the dentist I hand power over to him. These are all limited cases of specific power, but actually, in a democracy is it so different? The leader of the country is given certain powers for 4 years, and if you don't like it, you vote him out.
i have Hugh McKenney to vote for though 
just thought id share this because there was two hugh mckenney ads in my mail box
Linear Mode
