Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kaijyuu]

At least you can pride yourself on believing that if only the person you voted for was elected, everything would be a-ok. Not that you'd ever be able to know that for certain, though

[MorleyDev]

At least you can pride yourself on believing that if only the person you voted for was elected, everything would be a-ok.

Pretty sure that'd just make me feel like a moron for ever being naive and gullible enough to believe that. Personally I'm happier with my hypercynicism, belief that intentions are worth nothing, general distrust in humanity and anyone claiming morality, and confidence that if I was in their position I'd be no better

[kaijyuu]

The more posts of yours I read, the more I believe you actually are David Xanatos.

[Bauglir]

What if you don't think *any* of the leaders are better than *any* of the others, and perhaps excluding one or two situations, the sum total of the damage any political leader can do at any moment is equal to the sum total of the damage any other political leader will do.

I'd deface the voting slip in the UK but even that's putting in too much energy I can put towards doing things that actually could make my life better.

Then you vote for somebody who isn't running, as I said. Hell, vote for Obi-Wan Kenobi. Seems like a decent way of expressing your disgust. Again, failure to vote doesn't signify distaste - it signifies acceptance of the status quo.

[MorleyDev]

Assuming the status quo is defined by "Those in power in a democracy will always do some good and some evil, and at any given time the sum total of the good and evil any leader can do is equal to the sum total any other leader would do during that time".

Most importantly, my decision to "vote for nobody" vs "not to vote" makes no practical difference upon the world. And thus we go back to my belief in the unimportance of intentions. If I achieve the exact same thing via either action, and the path of greatest benefit is to spend my time doing something more productive, I fail to see what is gained by doing the other action.

[andrea]

I think the point is: if many people don't vote, they will be ruled out as "people who don't care" and will be ignored. completely.
if 60-70% of people don't vote, I am sure many, if not most politicians, will just think " ah, well. they aren't going to vote either way, I shall try to appeal to the few extremists who still care about election".

But if 30-40% of electors vote for nobody or for somebody who isn't running, or similar, there is a difference. Sure, it won't affect the current elections, but it will show that there is a large number of people who DO care, who ARE willing to do the trip to the local voting booth. and if market forces work i politics too ( they should, to a  degree), a large demand generates a supply too. Knowing that there are electors who don't share the values of current parties, but who also want to vote  would push at least some people to try to move away from party lines and get part of the "white" vote.

that is how I see it at least. an elector that doesn't vote is much less visible and easily ignored than one who votes blank.

[Graknorke]

Vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party. They are almost certainly the most INTERESTING party, and it'd be kind of funny to see what would happen if they actually got voted in somewhere.
Are you looking at the elections as being strictly two-party though? Because there's likely a party that you'll agree with. Somewhere. If you can, vote for them. You're at least contributing to lowering the percentage of the voting population the voted for the Popular Out Of Touch Old Farts Party.

[Bauglir]

Assuming the status quo is defined by "Those in power in a democracy will always do some good and some evil, and at any given time the sum total of the good and evil any leader can do is equal to the sum total any other leader would do during that time".

Most importantly, my decision to "vote for nobody" vs "not to vote" makes no practical difference upon the world. And thus we go back to my belief in the unimportance of intentions. If I achieve the exact same thing via either action, and the path of greatest benefit is to spend my time doing something more productive, I fail to see what is gained by doing the other action.

Intentions don't matter - which is why it doesn't matter why you're not voting. All that matters is that you're condoning every possible outcome. Voting for nobody isn't about affecting the election (obviously), it's about communication. Like all votes, your message will only be heard if a lot of people give voice to it, but refusing to vote for that reason is the most obviously self-fulfilling prophecy of our era. And I can think of no better "Fuck you" to the current paradigm of "no real choice" than saying, "You guys suck so bad, I'd rather somebody whose executive decisions have to be written by George Lucas be in charge."

Unless you're arguing that there is no real difference between any two people in terms of what they'll do if given power, in which case your position just seems so absurd to me that I can't mount a real argument against it. Such a position might not actually be that absurd, but it seems so to me.

[MorleyDev]

My point is there's a difference, but the sum of those differences is the same. So long as a "non-extremist" party gets into power (so not the BNP, for example) the sum of the problems a party causes will be equal to the sum of the problems another party would of caused. If I could vote "I don't want this party" instead of "I want this party", I'd probably be willing to give voting more importance...plus that'd appeal to my "everybody sucks, let's at least not pick the ones who'll try and restart the colonial era" attitude.

Assuming every action can be assigned value, my argument is any problem X in one party will be matched by problem Y in the other party such that the sum total of each parties value is approximately equal. In a tyranny the person(s) in charge could make more of a difference, but in a democracy?

And especially one with such short term times, 4 or 8 years are hardly long enough to bring in far reaching meaningful changes which encourages seeking success for the short term and leaving problems to the next lot. The decisions that work best in the long term have a tendency to hurt people in the short term, and since the short term is all a party has and the party that gets in next will inevitably be one of the the ones calling to fix the things that hurt people in the short term, long term solutions to problems in such a system are near impossible.

Of course you're right in that why I'm not voting doesn't matter. To me. I have a reason, and I like it, but I'm not going to stop others going to vote if they want to. I'll put my opinion forward sure, I'll even defend it, but I'm not going to claim it makes me morally superior. Plus I'm aware other people think motives and intentions matter. I can't figure out why, but they do. So in having a well defined motive/intention I can at least use it as a shield against such people.

[SalmonGod]

When I voted in the last elections, it was on an electronic voting machine that treated it like a multiple choice test.  Is writing in a fictional character even an option anymore?

And what if you disagree with the practice of voting?

[Graknorke]

Unless you're arguing that there is no real difference between any two people in terms of what they'll do if given power, in which case your position just seems so absurd to me that I can't mount a real argument against it. Such a position might not actually be that absurd, but it seems so to me.

I wouldn't say such a position is so absurd. It's the foundation of the entire reason government seems to change hands EVERY election. Party A makes a mistake, Party B says they wouldn't have made that decision, people get upset and A and elect B, B makes a mistake, A says they wouldn't have made that mistake, people get angry at B, people elect A.
They might do things subtly different, but they have staggeringly little control over the problems that we have now (The economncy).

Spoiler: everything they say they can do about it is generally pretty superfluous (click to show/hide)

Wow I'm cutting it close here, how well can a person whose though processes are slowed down by citirizine hydrochloride mix together serious opinions and lighthearted politics related comics? Only the post button will tell.

[Euld]

I get it o_O  It's Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal and it's sarcasm sorta.

Mmmmm that's some tasty cereal.

[Bauglir]

Well, fair enough, MorleyDev. I don't agree that the two outcomes are equivalent (just that both are bad, one to an extreme greater than the other), and that seems to be something on which we will not agree. Though, if you think the sum of good and bad of both parties, why does avoiding the ones who want to roll back to an imagined past matter?

Unless you're arguing that there is no real difference between any two people in terms of what they'll do if given power, in which case your position just seems so absurd to me that I can't mount a real argument against it. Such a position might not actually be that absurd, but it seems so to me.

I wouldn't say such a position is so absurd. It's the foundation of the entire reason government seems to change hands EVERY election. Party A makes a mistake, Party B says they wouldn't have made that decision, people get upset and A and elect B, B makes a mistake, A says they wouldn't have made that mistake, people get angry at B, people elect A.
They might do things subtly different, but they have staggeringly little control over the problems that we have now

I do agree that leaders are far from omnipotent, and that not all problems can be blamed on the failure of a particular politician or party. To argue that they don't matter at all is a completely different thing - I'd have expected WW2 to go quite differently if Hitler had died mid-war, even assuming a peaceful transition of power to a successor. I mean, as long as there are counterexamples, the generalization is wrong.

When I voted in the last elections, it was on an electronic voting machine that treated it like a multiple choice test.  Is writing in a fictional character even an option anymore?

And what if you disagree with the practice of voting?

Huh, that's a good question. I didn't know that there were jurisdictions in which write-in candidates were not allowed (Wikipedia suggests that this is the case). In that case, I suppose you might as well not vote. Might want to figure out who's in charge of those rules and petition them to change them, but that sort of campaign is a good deal more investment of effort and time than simply writing in a vote.

Also, if you disagree with the practice of voting, I recommend writing in "Anarchy" or a similar non-democratic system. I mean, I suppose it depends on what it is about voting that you disapprove of, but at this point you're basically hijacking the system to use it as a means of expression (since you don't want to condone any major candidates, this is about the only option you have left).

[MorleyDev]

Though, if you think the sum of good and bad of both parties, why does avoiding the ones who want to roll back to an imagined past matter?

Because sometimes you get the ones who get lucky. And if we were in another such place and time, I'd be all for voting for anybody but Nazism 2.0. But we aren't, we have these parties who are just equally (in my view) 'shit', and then the even 'shittier' parties who presently have no chance in hell getting voted in.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Hitler's actions were based off of existing feelings. His expansion into Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland were all based off of the popular ideal of a pan-Germanic state.