Moderator: Community Team
Metsfanmax wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Dukasaur wrote:When all the choices available are unpalatable, it is perfectly reasonable to say "I won't dignify this corrupt collection of gangsters by participating in their charade."
In what way is the process of voting "dignifying" any of the candidates? The process of voting is dignifying your right to live in a democratic state.
By engaging in the act of voting you have given your consent to be bound by the results of the election and given your individual recognition to the power structure that has organized the election. Punching a ballot is the same as clicking "yes" to the Terms of Service when signing up to Conquer Club.
In a proper system of government, anytime voter turnout is less than 50% a constitutional convention would immediately be called.
I disagree. By the act of living inside the geographical boundaries of the U.S.A. you give your consent to be bound by the results of the election. You can't just freeload off the benefits that are derived from living in a stable society, and cherry pick which parts of the system you think are legitimate.
That's a false dilemma that presupposes you have unrestricted freedom to move outside the geographical boundaries of the USA when it suits you. Your ability to quit the United States and move to Italy depends on whether the Italian government decides to accept your immigration application.
There's a difference between pure anarchists and freeloaders. The former do face a real problem; it is actually pragmatically difficult to leave the geopolitical boundaries of a given state without entering the boundaries of another one. That being said, what I'm talking about isn't in regard to anarchists; it applies to people who believe they are, and desire to be, citizens of the U.S.A. People who desire to be part of the structure that comprises this country automatically give consent to the governmental structure. Whether or not you vote has no bearing on whether you have given consent to the legitimacy of the structure. What I'm saying is you can't legitimately take advantage of such benefits as a police force to maintain order, while at the same time claim the system is illegitimate. Your actions speak louder than your words.
Phatscotty: this is standard social contract theory. It's not a particularly unique or new argument.
saxitoxin wrote:The United States is both a nation and a state [AKA a nation-state]. Rejection of the political entity (the state) is not analogous to rejection of the cultural entity (the nation).
patches70 wrote:saxitoxin wrote:The United States is both a nation and a state [AKA a nation-state]. Rejection of the political entity (the state) is not analogous to rejection of the cultural entity (the nation).
This is something not many people recognize. This distinction is lost to those who think citizens rejecting the state by not voting are being lazy, apathetic, pessimistic or any number of other excuses. To the people who make the conscious choice not to vote for ethical, moral or other reasons, this distinction between the nation and the state is not lost.
I think if more people truly understood this concept then one could be led to a conclusion about the so called "wasted vote".To vote third party candidates because the voter is dissatisfied with the status quo candidates is often called a wasted vote. But the true wasted vote is the vote that maintains the very people who are the snakes in the grass. In the US that would be the Democrats and the Republicans. A vote for either is the true wasted vote.
Unless, of course, one is satisfied with the way things are, which people are (should be) free to choose.
But I've never understood why people vote "the lesser of two evils" because they don't want to waste their vote. It makes little sense to me, but to each their own I suppose. "They both suck, but I gotta vote for one of them, nobody else even has a chance, right?" Well no shit Sherlock, with that type of thinking it's no wonder we get kicked or stomped depending on what party is doing the "public service". If the two mainstream candidates both suck, then damn, don't vote for either of them.
I'm just musing here is all. As you were I guess, but Saxi is spot on about the nature of voting.
If voting made a difference, it would be illegal
Funkyterrance wrote:
If Hitler were still alive and he and one of the presidential elects were running against each other you can bet your ass that people would go out and vote. Oh, that is except for saxi and patches.
saxitoxin wrote:If someone participates in the political structure created by the Congress and President - elections held on November 6, etc. - they've recognized the legitimacy of their authority. This is why all governments all over the world spend millions of dollars encouraging people to vote and, when that fails, criminalize non-voting (e.g. Australia), and why opposition parties in oligarchies encourage election boycotts. This is a critical ritual affirmation of authority.
_sabotage_ wrote:The Olympics were in decline too a decade ago. I guess our entertainment values have changed. We weren't as entertained this election and the voting reflects it. It's a game show with shitty prizes and a captive but bored audience.
Both parties support giving trillions to banks, both sides continue to wage war and develop the military at hundreds of billions per year, both sides continue the war on drugs and take away our civil rights. And as long as both sides pursue their singular strategy, a vote just legitimizes their actions. Each year our wealth concentrates further and the population is left with lies, broken promises and a big show to create the illusion of action.
You ask has America given up? I ask, when was it any different?
The guy from Ohio says his vote counts. no, his doesn't either. He can vote for Bush senior knowing that we can read his lips about no more taxes, and then watch his taxes increase like everyone else. We can vote for Obama knowing he smoked weed and is in the pro category and then watch record marijuana related arrests year after year.
We had a greater turnout last go because Obama's rousing speeches of change. Finally something different. It's all the same, the show goes on.
metsfanmax wrote:Suppose you turned the argument on its head. Why is it that the act of voting itself recognizes the legitimacy of U.S. government authority? I could in principle reject their authority over me, but nevertheless use the vote that has been granted to me by their laws, because I pragmatically recognize that certain leaders will be better for me than others, even if I do not recognize their authority to rule over me. So I do not think that the act of voting presupposes any claims of legitimacy of the government. It's just the realization of the fact that for better or worse, there is a state operating in this geographical area, and they interact with me even if I do not want to interact with them.
Funkyterrance wrote:If Hitler were still alive and he and one of the presidential elects were running against each other you can bet your ass that people would go out and vote. Oh, that is except for saxi and patches.
AndyDufresne wrote:Anyone have the numbers of popular vote going back in the early 1900s, and the percentage of total population the turnout amounted to? It'd be interesting to see a whole chart and look at any trends.
saxitoxin wrote:AndyDufresne wrote:Anyone have the numbers of popular vote going back in the early 1900s, and the percentage of total population the turnout amounted to? It'd be interesting to see a whole chart and look at any trends.
Until 1960 here - http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
It was at a high of 63% in 1960, hit a low in 1996 when it dropped below 50%, and crawled back up to 57% in 2008 when you had a novelty candidate on the ballot.
This is a more dramatic gap when one considers that, in 1960, you had a 10-hour window to vote. Now most states give you a week or more to vote and some, like Washington and Oregon, just mail you a ballot automatically.
saxitoxin wrote:metsfanmax wrote:Suppose you turned the argument on its head. Why is it that the act of voting itself recognizes the legitimacy of U.S. government authority? I could in principle reject their authority over me, but nevertheless use the vote that has been granted to me by their laws, because I pragmatically recognize that certain leaders will be better for me than others, even if I do not recognize their authority to rule over me. So I do not think that the act of voting presupposes any claims of legitimacy of the government. It's just the realization of the fact that for better or worse, there is a state operating in this geographical area, and they interact with me even if I do not want to interact with them.
Maybe. That's contrary to the scientific consensus that voting is an irrational act.
saxitoxin wrote:
If society has evolved to a point that Hitler stands a good chance of being elected, it won't matter. If Hitler is able to command 49% popular support, the formality of an election is not going to be an obstacle that keeps him from office. An election is only relevant if people recognize its authority.In Tennessee in the 1820s the Governor and Legislature were tired of the Tennessee Supreme Court striking down their laws. So they organized their own Supreme Court and started ignoring the old one. The old court continued meeting and issuing rulings but the Governor and Legislature pretended it didn't exist and started bringing cases to the new court. The fact the old court was the legally constituted court was irrelevant if everyone simply ignored it.
This is one of the few cases in which, if you ignore something, it actually does go away. If enough people ignore the government, the government eventually just ... stops. Even people who advocate for compulsory voting are very clear about the reasons they want it - "Voting confers legitimacy ... as more and more people choose to abstain, elected officials rule with less and less consent."
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users