I won't vote in 2010

Incidentally, the Democrats did raise minimum wage at the very beginning of this term, but so far as i'm aware it wasn't linked to COLA.

obtuseobserver said:

There is no patriotic duty to vote. The highest rates of voting occur in totalitarian states where they impose a duty to vote - not liberal democracies, republics etc.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, in fact, in the former-USSR, they held regular elections. Indeed, for those that didn't vote, the NKVD would visit their homes in order to ascertain the reason.

However, I would also add that Australia has a system of compulsory voting. Voting should always be voluntary.

David said:

And I disagree with his reasoning as it's that kind of thinking that has us stuck in the current situation. Until people stop whining and start acting, nothing will change.

Click to expand...

You presume, comrade, that the single way of affecting change is through parliamentary means. I would consider it a perfectly legitimate form of protest against the system, not to participate. You may suggest that someone who doesn't vote ought not to complain, but I would respond, if you partake in a morally bankrupt system, do you then have the licence to complain about the outcome?

Dirk said:

Incidentally, the Democrats did raise minimum wage at the very beginning of this term, but so far as i'm aware it wasn't linked to COLA.



Absolutely, in fact, in the former-USSR, they held regular elections. Indeed, for those that didn't vote, the NKVD would visit their homes in order to ascertain the reason.

However, I would also add that Australia has a system of compulsory voting. Voting should always be voluntary.

Click to expand...

stop it - I'm supposed to regard you in an adversarial way

Dirk said:

Incidentally, the Democrats did raise minimum wage at the very beginning of this term, but so far as i'm aware it wasn't linked to COLA.



Absolutely, in fact, in the former-USSR, they held regular elections. Indeed, for those that didn't vote, the NKVD would visit their homes in order to ascertain the reason.

However, I would also add that Australia has a system of compulsory voting. Voting should always be voluntary.



You presume, comrade, that the single way of affecting change is through parliamentary means. I would consider it a perfectly legitimate form of protest against the system, not to participate. You may suggest that someone who doesn't vote ought not to complain, but I would respond, if you partake in a morally bankrupt system, do you then have the licence to complain about the outcome?

Click to expand...

Iraq. They followed your logic in the 1st post-Saddam elections, saw it as illegitimate and didn't want to be associated with it. It didn't turn out so well for them as they ended up with no voice in what proved to be a brutal gov't checked only by UN forces. Needless to say, Iraqis tend to not skip elections anymore.

The thing about electoral systems, so long as it's not rigged, is no matter how corrupt the gov't is, all you have to do is elect honest people. Not always easy, especially if the electorate is uneducated (Hello America! ) but that's a people issue, not a system issue.

Also, welcome back, Comrade!

obtuseobserver said:

stop it - I'm supposed to regard you in an adversarial way

Click to expand...

Well, i'm SORRY if my opinions coincide with yours!

David said:

Iraq. They followed your logic in the 1st post-Saddam elections, saw it as illegitimate and didn't want to be associated with it. It didn't turn out so well for them as they ended up with no voice in what proved to be a brutal gov't checked only by UN forces. Needless to say, Iraqis tend to not skip elections anymore.

Click to expand...

I could also argue that the CDU-FDP coalition Germany has right now is a result of disaffection from Green and SPD voters, who see their respective parties as betraying their principles, and see The Left party as well, too far left. However, I would also suggest that it would be hypocritical to take a part in the system you want to see dismantled - participation gives legitimacy.

The thing about electoral systems, so long as it's not rigged, is no matter how corrupt the gov't is, all you have to do is elect honest people.

Click to expand...

Like that's going to happen.

Not always easy, especially if the electorate is uneducated (Hello America! ) but that's a people issue, not a system issue.

Click to expand...

So how many honest politicians would you say there are?

Furthermore, choosing not to vote could be due to a huge variety of reasons. It could be a disagreement with the candidates, as you suggest (remember the US system is so constructed that there is almost no alternative to Rep/Dem), it could be a protest against the whole system of political parties, or against liberal democracy as a whole. It's simply not fair to simply decry all those who are (ironically perhaps) making their own political statement as "unpatriotic" (whatever that means), or so.

Also, welcome back, Comrade!

Click to expand...

Thank you.

Dirk said:

Well, i'm SORRY if my opinions coincide with yours!



I could also argue that the CDU-FDP coalition Germany has right now is a result of disaffection from Green and SPD voters, who see their respective parties as betraying their principles, and see The Left party as well, too far left. However, I would also suggest that it would be hypocritical to take a part in the system you want to see dismantled - participation gives legitimacy.



Like that's going to happen.



So how many honest politicians would you say there are?

Furthermore, choosing not to vote could be due to a huge variety of reasons. It could be a disagreement with the candidates, as you suggest (remember the US system is so constructed that there is almost no alternative to Rep/Dem), it could be a protest against the whole system of political parties, or against liberal democracy as a whole. It's simply not fair to simply decry all those who are (ironically perhaps) making their own political statement as "unpatriotic" (whatever that means), or so.



Thank you.

Click to expand...

I get what you're saying and would support implementing nationally Arizona's "None of These Candidates" option. But I still fell you should vote, you may lend legitimacy to the system but every protest vote/vote for an honest candidate weakens the legitimacy of the crooks in power. If everyone voted for who they supported rather then who they thought would win, the political system in the US would be far different and I feel, better. As I said, it's not an issue with the system, it's an issue with the people.

David said:

I get what you're saying and would support implementing nationally Arizona's "None of These Candidates" option. But I still fell you should vote, you may lend legitimacy to the system but every protest vote/vote for an honest candidate weakens the legitimacy of the crooks in power. If everyone voted for who they supported rather then who they thought would win, the political system in the US would be far different and I feel, better. As I said, it's not an issue with the system, it's an issue with the people.

Click to expand...

What If I pointed out I oppose liberal democracy?

My friend, comrade and crush, Matt, and I were talking about this when I voted last time. I regret my mistake.

The political system would not be that different, given that the media, through manufacturing consent, control the opinions and debate in society. There is an issue with a system that exacerbates the idea of two parties - or even two personalities. Obama vs McCain, Gore vs Bush, Kerry vs Bush, etc. Because the system is a two party system - or if you're even more cynical, a one-party system - they are presented as the only reasonable/viable options. As much as we all enjoy insulting Americans, it is not ignorance, but a system that enforces ignorance. Also, does the Socialist Party, or the Green Party have as much financial clout as either of the two main parties? Of course not.

Dirk said:

What If I pointed out I oppose liberal democracy?

My friend, comrade and crush, Matt, and I were talking about this when I voted last time. I regret my mistake.

The political system would not be that different, given that the media, through manufacturing consent, control the opinions and debate in society. There is an issue with a system that exacerbates the idea of two parties - or even two personalities. Obama vs McCain, Gore vs Bush, Kerry vs Bush, etc. Because the system is a two party system - or if you're even more cynical, a one-party system - they are presented as the only reasonable/viable options. As much as we all enjoy insulting Americans, it is not ignorance, but a system that enforces ignorance. Also, does the Socialist Party, or the Green Party have as much financial clout as either of the two main parties? Of course not.

Click to expand...

The Green and Libertarian Parties both ran candidates for Congress, in Colorado, the Republicans had such a poor showing they almost lost their qualification as a major party (the Democratic and Constitutional Parties would have appeared at the top of the ballot for the next 2 years [longer if the Republicans didn't requalify] had that happened), Rhode Island elected an independent governor. Alaska elected a write-in senator and Maine came within 1% of electing an independent governor. So ya the Dems and Repubs have the better showing but they're hardly the be all and end all, especially in the current political climate. In fact this could be the end of the 2-Party system as the TP plans to caucus independent of the Republicans and run as an independent party starting in '12 if they can't size power of the RNC from the GOP (which nobody expects to happen).

Dirk said:

Well, i'm SORRY if my opinions coincide with yours!

Click to expand...

quit it


..............................................

.