User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: I didn't vote.

  1. #11
    Junior Member LadyVioletBaudelaire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Enneagram
    4w3 sp/sx
    Posts
    14

    Default

    I didn't vote either. I think the whole civic duty bit rubs me the wrong way.

    It's not even that I don't think what I say matters, I just have no political opinion beyond that everyone should pay tax to me, so that I can be filthy rich. I doubt they have that option though, whenever will they learn?
    Not "Revelation"—'tis—that waits,
    But our unfurnished eyes—
    ~ Emily Dickinson

  2. #12
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entropie View Post
    I dont think the american 2 party system is too good as well. Especially this electoral colleague thing, where half of the votes in a state are basically lost, I dont think is so good long term. What would be better would be a chance for new parties to form and rise, so new people - which at least at the beginning are somewhat untouched by lobbies - could come into the country with new ideas.
    Which would be a nice new thread to examine: Viable ways to introduce a third-party (or more) to USA politics. I don't even know if it's possible without some type of regulation. Basically, the fish-eat-fish system automatically ends up creating two polarizing opposites in the kind of political system we have, as party joins party in order to have more voting power. And those parties that do not join simply end up being lost/ignored amid the noise from the major two parties.

    We don't even really get the corporate restraints, in that a company typically has to produce viable product in order to remain on top, and there's an opportunity (however small) for a corporation to collapse if it cannot continue to innovate. (For example, at one time, Blockbuster was on top of home movie rentals because they were innovative; but then they squandered their position with exorbitant rental costs for plans people didn't really need, and they did not innovate/adapt to media-streaming technology, and smaller more agile companies danced around them.)

    With the political systems, they just become the only games in town with power to do anything on the national level; and since much of the loyalty is due to an ideological rather than pragmatic commitment, they're not even required to innovate/succeed.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  3. #13
    royal member Rasofy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,933

    Default

    I wouldn't vote if I had the chance not to, but voting is mandatory here.

    If the candidate I want to win doesn't win by one vote, then my vote per se is pretty much useless.

    No ''yada yada if everyone thought that way [...]''.

  4. #14
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EvidenceOfRedemption View Post
    Why is not voting such a faux pas in the US?
    more than half of the votes in the country are crumpled up and thrown away anyway, since the votes for the losing party are voices not being heard, and the votes in the margin of victory aren't necessary.

    no idea why such a big deal is made over "democracy" around here.

    here's a hint: you can't have a republic and a democracy. they are necessarily mutually exclusive.
    we fukin won boys

  5. #15
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    A coerced vote is not a vote at all in my book.

    Between the politicians lobbying and lying on one side and the citizens gobbling up the propaganda and demanding that I vote on the other side, that kind of just makes me a pawn of agendas no matter what. It's not free and I really wouldn't even say it is democratic either.

    There would probably be less apathy and more incentive for people to actually vote if it weren't for the absurd, overdone, mind numbing media propaganda machine that assumes everyone is a brainless ADHD goldfish that must be coerced into voting to the point they have to start campaigning on YouTube ads.

    It makes me want to throw up. They've burned me out to the point where I just don't give a flipping pigeon fuck due to being assaulted and invaded with it CONSTANTLY.

  6. #16
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Which would be a nice new thread to examine: Viable ways to introduce a third-party (or more) to USA politics. I don't even know if it's possible without some type of regulation. Basically, the fish-eat-fish system automatically ends up creating two polarizing opposites in the kind of political system we have, as party joins party in order to have more voting power. And those parties that do not join simply end up being lost/ignored amid the noise from the major two parties.

    We don't even really get the corporate restraints, in that a company typically has to produce viable product in order to remain on top, and there's an opportunity (however small) for a corporation to collapse if it cannot continue to innovate. (For example, at one time, Blockbuster was on top of home movie rentals because they were innovative; but then they squandered their position with exorbitant rental costs for plans people didn't really need, and they did not innovate/adapt to media-streaming technology, and smaller more agile companies danced around them.)

    With the political systems, they just become the only games in town with power to do anything on the national level; and since much of the loyalty is due to an ideological rather than pragmatic commitment, they're not even required to innovate/succeed.
    This is a very pragmatical comparison, which would give you the liberal tag in my country. Tho I am a member of the liberal party in my country, I still think that the point when governments are evaluated like companies, shouldnt be crossed. For me government, industry and people form the holy trinity so to say and they should be all connected and influence themselves. While the industry is paied for their output by the people who buy it, the people should be the Ones paid by the industry for making the output come true. The government should be there to watch the two and to be watched by the two, collecting money from both but spending money to both as well for structural inovation in industry or social help for people who cant work or do not find work.

    This's basically the german model which has been working quite well. But as it is with all models, some time there will be a maverick who blows the tranquil atmosphere to pieces. And in this case it was the whole finance industry. The sole idea that you can make more money when you have money, but without investing it in a real business, but only by buying fictional papers and then selling it again, ruins the model. I have seen a statistics lately which portraied the income of the world industry in 2011 with the income of the world finance system: the finance income was a bit higher.

    I am no socialist, no I even like speculation myself and the whole investment idea in which I invest in a new company and at the end of the day everybody profits. But that doesnt work no more. Since the finance sector has at some point crossed the border and started to specualte with the assets of their most poor customers and blew it, now its government money that is drained. The only reasonable outcome for this is that states and nations will go bankrupt and at some point will fire people in the public sector. You can see our future in Greece today. Since the public sector is prolly the biggest employer out there, this will cost a lot of jobs.

    Why am I saying all this ?
    I have spent this american election for the first time in my life, a lot of time with following the election. As much as I could and as many information as I got. In all that time the problem I talked about above wasnt sufficiently discussed in my opinion. And that tho it is the main problem we all should be concerned about. Instead you have a Romney, with a baby in his hands, speaking in front of the camera saying that he loves America and by that drawing 50 million voters on his side. And that doesnt make sense to me.

    It's like in the military before an epic battle. The general says something motivating and has all soldiers follow him. Thats like this vote appeared to me. There was way too little room for debate and discussion. Of course there were the great tv duells but I mean those are basically a lot of show. And at the end of the day it isnt intresting if one president can beat the other in a debate, it would be intresting to hear what the people want, not what the presidents promise.

    If you take a look in the politics section in this forum and see this endless and fruitful debates about politics made by american people and even foreigners, I mean thats great. Politics is exactly that namely endless debates about what is right and wrong until you flip over because you are fatigued. I have totally missed that in the election campaign. The whole campaign nearly only revolved around those two personalities and had only little content, little debate on the people level drawn into the public and little substanciality; it was more like that when one president would have shown his naked ass in the camera, his party had clearly lost ( or won ) the vote due to that, paying no respect to what the whole party stands for. Thats like in China where the whole team is fired, cause one person effed up.

    Last but not least I think the role of the president is taken way too seriously. He has a standing like a God sometimes. I was asked one day on this forum, if I wasnt pissed that the Greece made some bad pictures of our chancellor. I had to tell that guy, if he would know what jokes the own people have about their chancellor, he wouldnt ask that. And thats the point, by joking about those politicians, we degodify them, we make them people with normal problems like we all have. We still respect them cause we have voted them but by knowing that they are only people two, we dont put so much blind trust into their politics like into a God, to be disappointed later or kill your husband because he didnt vote. This makes people here being more independent than dependant on a God or president.

    The solution at the end of the day could be that multi-party system, where you have at least 4 contradictionary parties trieing to get the best out of it for everybody. That would make for a good yin and yang. Everything else will stay a plutocracy that works with idols to blind the people, which is sad cause I think there are a lot of american people who today would be ready to do politics themselves.
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  7. #17
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entropie View Post
    This is a very pragmatical comparison, which would give you the liberal tag in my country. Tho I am a member of the liberal party in my country, I still think that the point when governments are evaluated like companies, shouldnt be crossed. For me government, industry and people form the holy trinity so to say and they should be all connected and influence themselves. While the industry is paied for their output by the people who buy it, the people should be the Ones paid by the industry for making the output come true. The government should be there to watch the two and to be watched by the two, collecting money from both but spending money to both as well for structural inovation in industry or social help for people who cant work or do not find work.
    While I'm still reading the rest of your post, I think I really need to reassert that I'm not evaluating the government in terms of a company in the way you seem to have interpreted and then labeled me. My goal in that post was not to tell government how it SHOULD operate, I am explaining how the system NATURALLY works and why the two-party system dominates here in my opinion.

    And my point was that one of the constraints that forces businesses to evolve and sometimes lets the "little guy step in" (basically, innovation) doesn't even function in accordance with government, because the adherence to a party is often ideological rather than pragmatic. So our system doesn't even have THAT much going for it. The two-party system seems pretty entrenched and IMO will not change unless it is essentially broken up by regulation.

    And I even imagine that if one of the little "third parties" would grow big enough to dominate, it would simply absorb one of the large two parties, thus still leaving two parties.

    So let's just clear that up, up front.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  8. #18
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    While I'm still reading the rest of your post, I think I really need to reassert that I'm not evaluating the government in terms of a company in the way you seem to have interpreted and then labeled me. My goal in that post was not to tell government how it SHOULD operate, I am explaining how the system NATURALLY works and why the two-party system dominates here in my opinion.

    And my point was that one of the constraints that forces businesses to evolve and sometimes lets the "little guy step in" (basically, innovation) doesn't even function in accordance with government, because the adherence to a party is often ideological rather than pragmatic. So our system doesn't even have THAT much going for it. The two-party system seems pretty entrenched and IMO will not change unless it is essentially broken up by regulation.

    And I even imagine that if one of the little "third parties" would grow big enough to dominate, it would simply absorb one of the large two parties, thus still leaving two parties.

    So let's just clear that up, up front.
    Ok sorry for that. I just hoped to have finally found an ally to build my technocracy with .
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  9. #19
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EvidenceOfRedemption View Post
    Why is not voting such a faux pas in the US?
    So that people will vote. Without sufficient social pressure to conform to the voting norm, there would be insufficient people to maintain the (illusion of the?) system. Think of it like an external incentive. It exists for the sole reason of incentivizing voting.

    My vote literally would count for nothing.
    Every vote has a non-zero value before it is cast, even in the worst situations.

    It just wasn't worth your effort to vote. I'm willfully politically ignorant; the sheer amount of work for me to give an educated vote relative to the gain of having cast that vote isn't even close to me gaining from it.

    OTOH, I will vote on individual issues that can be easily reduced. Of course, my vote still has relatively little value, but the cost of deciding is low. I'd also vote if I could anti-vote, since it's pretty easy to determine what you really don't want to have happen. Run-off voting would also simplify things enough for me to be a more active participant (not really caring which of the top few win, but vastly preferring one of them to the alternatives).

    Recent example for me is the HST vote in BC:
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...m-results.html

  10. #20
    Senior Member Little_Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EvidenceOfRedemption View Post
    Why is not voting such a faux pas in the US?

    I knew Obama would win the election in February, not to mention that he was obviously going to win in my state (Washington)... even if I wanted Romney to win, why should I vote? My vote literally would count for nothing.

    "But every vote counts!" Wrong. 50% of the majority votes plus ONE on a state-by-state basis count, so technically only 50 votes counts in the sense that it is a deciding factor. Anything beyond that is unnecessary, and on the flip-side, any loss by more than one vote are irrelevant as well.



    Now, this does mean that every vote counts towards what 50% is and which vote will be the winning vote, but assuming I could not have known for certain Obama would win, even so, in a state like mine there really is no point to obsess over whether or not INDIVIDUALS vote. Do you agree? Why or why not?
    It's stupid anyway.

    The whole idea pits contradicting ideologies against one another. If you vote for one side, it's to the detriment of another.

    And add into the fact that candidates are also evaluated by their political party (and their history, even if arguably irrelevant) and not solely on who they are and what issues they intend to deal with and it's really stupid. It shouldn't have to be about benefiting one person by hurting another. The way it's set up promotes corruption and evil. You're a better human being for not voting and instead dealing with issues in ways that will benefit everyone and not pit people against one another.

Similar Threads

  1. Famous/INfamous people you wish didn't share your type
    By Sahara in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: 04-06-2012, 12:43 PM
  2. Why didn't I think of that?!?
    By Tigerlily in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-20-2007, 05:37 PM
  3. [NF] Any NFs who didn't totally hate math?
    By prplchknz in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 11-15-2007, 04:30 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO