Moderator: Community Team
Funkyterrance wrote:I, for one, haven't.
I've been contemplating the lack of turnout and have come to the conclusion that these people are just lazy. There's almost always a lesser of two evils. That being said, it stands to reason that their vote would reflect this and therefore I'd prefer they didn't vote anyway.
I didn't vote in the poll because it was too one-sided.
Dukasaur wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:I, for one, haven't.
I've been contemplating the lack of turnout and have come to the conclusion that these people are just lazy. There's almost always a lesser of two evils. That being said, it stands to reason that their vote would reflect this and therefore I'd prefer they didn't vote anyway.
I didn't vote in the poll because it was too one-sided.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
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."
And no, I'm not one of those people who doesn't vote. I always do vote, and I always find some rationale for why I picked Scumbag D over Scumbags A, B, and C. But that's my choice, and I won't disrespect those who choose not to participate at all. Nothing "lazy" about wanting to stay clean.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
saxitoxin wrote:
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.
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.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users