Conquer Club

So, a quick glance at the popular vote numbers for the last two presidential elections shows me that somewhere between 9 and 10 million Americans decided to just not vote this time around. Will those 10 million vote again in the future, or have they just stopped giving a shit? What do you guys think?

The Numbers:
2008 Popular Vote: 69,456,897 for Obama, 59,934,814 for McCain
2012 Popular Vote: 61,811,225 for Obama, 58,580,193 for Romney

Now, someone might ask why I'm not including third party and write in votes. The answer to that is that I'm lazy. Deal with it.

Edit: Just realized my poll disenfranchised non-Americans, so I added an option for you.

well, for one, the election of 2008 was much more "historic"

and two, it looks like 10 times more Democrats have given up than Republicans

btw, they don't count the write ins. If Ron Paul got the nomination, I bet more people would have voted

I will give you that the leaders of America seem to have given up. The dollar is going to crash soon, and they know it, and they are trying to get as much for themselves as they can while they can. The future has already been sold out along the lines of how much we borrow and spend, and seemingly are willing to borrow and spend more, under this premise I would agree more and more American's are like "we're screwed anyways, let's just spend to the moon and get the big crash over with".

Insanity and ignorance are also acceptable excuses

I guess if you're in New York you may feel your vote isn't necessary because New York is going to the Democrats anyway. 2 choices isn't really much choice.

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.

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:

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.

Just like me, you are projecting. Hard to say for sure the reasons behind the low turnout but we can only suppose. As far as staying clean, you can always use your better judgement. Therefore I think my assessment may be more likely.

I suspect most of the people who didn't vote are self-disenfranchised (or whatever) - In other words, they had no interest in voting because they are lazy or too busy or whatever.

Ironically, the people that did vote are probably disenfranchised. For example, my wife voted for Romney. I voted for Gary Johnson. Our state was solidly Democrat, so my vote really didn't count, right? All the electoral votes for my state went to Obama; not proportional.

America is over $16 trillion in debt. The “official” unemployment rate still hovers around 8%.

Our federal government claims the right to spy on American citizens, indefinitely detain them, and even assassinate them without trial.

Domestic drones fly over the country for civilian surveillance.

Twelve million fewer Americans voted in 2012 than in 2008, yet political pundits scratch their heads.

It’s not hard to see why, though.

To go along with endorsing a never-ending policy of bailouts, “stimulus packages,” and foreign military adventurism, the establishment of neither major party questions the assaults on Americans’ liberties I’ve named above.

As my campaign showed, the American people are fed up. Many realized heading into Tuesday that regardless of who won the presidential election, the status quo would be the real victor.

GOP leadership is now questioning why they didn’t perform better.

They’re looking at demographic changes in the United States and implying minorities can only be brought into the party by loudly advocating for abandoning what little remains of their limited government platform and endorsing more statist policies.

My presidential campaign proved that standing for freedom brings people together.

Liberty is popular – regardless of race, religion, or creed.

As long as the GOP establishment continues to not only reject the liberty message, but actively drive away the young, diverse coalition that supports those principles, it will see results similar to Tuesday’s outcome.

A renewed respect for liberty is the only way forward for the Republican Party and for our country.

I urge all my Republican colleagues to join the liberty movement in fighting for a brighter future.- Ron Paul
(emphasis mine)

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.

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.

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.

Where in thee blue hell do your values and your principles come from Mets? Mind sharing?

Hitler's youth comment withheld.

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:

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:
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 agree with mets that its not the casting of your ballot that is agreeing to the terms of service but living in the US. Your vote is a privilege. If you so choose to pass on this privilege you no less agree to the outcome. Not voting out of principle is the adult version of sitting out the game with your arms crossed. The game will continue and those playing will be more or less unaffected by your silent protest.

Given up seems to imply that they won't ever get back into voting. I think it's the shitty candidates that made people not want to vote.

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.

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).

Also, one can freely reject the political entity as it's currently constituted while supporting the concept of a political entity. Power only exists through (a) overwhelming force, or, (b) widespread recognition. I can declare myself Emperor of Kansas tomorrow with no effect. If I declare myself Emperor of Kansas and the majority of the Kansas population starts submitting their disputes to my Imperial courts instead of the Kansas courts, etc., I would - in point of fact - be the Emperor of Kansas regardless of any claims the Governor and Legislature had to the contrary.

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.

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

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

For the record I don't vote for the lesser of two evils but if you're contemplating not voting and one candidate is most certainly going to win I don't see what's wrong with this option. Not voting for one advances the other. That is, unless so few people vote that the system has to be changed but I don't foresee that happening any time soon.
As far as the cultural entity of the US vs. the political entity, you all must be joking? Let's please not pretend to forget that a huge proportion of Americans don't give a flying fc about either. As I stated earlier, proposing the motives of the majority of non-voters is pure supposition. Or does someone have some figures proving otherwise?

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.

If voting made a difference, it would be illegal[/quote

This is an unpalatable truth for most people living in so called democracies who are raised to accept the illusion that they have a say in the running of their country.The people who have real power,much more than Presidents and other politicians, never stand for election and cannot be unseated at the ballot box.That is why I have to laugh at the naivety of statements such as when Obama is said to be a Marxist,as if the power brokers in the USA would allow a Marxist President to implement a Marxist programme.

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.

Yeah, people would vote and thanks to propaganda a lot of em might just vote for Hitler. Lest you forget, Hitler was Time magazine's "Man of the Year" at one point-



Hell of a bit of propaganda, eh? If only people had just known. Except, the signs were all there and a majority of people simply refused to acknowledge those signs, didn't they?

Certainly, there are people who don't vote due to apathy and other less than noble reasons, but if one has moral or ethical reasons for abstaining from a vote, it shouldn't be condemned by those who vote. Plenty of those who vote do so for reasons other than "a careful preponderance of the issues".
I'd think that voting without bothering to take the time to really contemplate why you are voting for said candidate is just as bad, if not worse, than simply not voting because you don't care.


Plato warned that in Democratic processes, that elections always degenerate into a simple popularity contest. That it is not the person best qualified or wisest who wins, but the one who greases the most palms, looks the best, talks the best. That too many will not consider the civic duty and vote according to their own greed instead of what is best for the society. Thus, the whole process becomes corrupted and the society suffers for it. People suffer for it, unless one is the "right" people. In other words, it degenerates into cronyism.
Plato was right.

Just saying is all.

It's a good point Saxi made, if a majority of people get sick of the political process to the point they'd rather not vote, then chances are, there is something seriously wrong with that process. (I don't know if the US is quite at that point yet, but this last Presidential election was a nice display of no real choice at all).

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.

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.

See I live in Ohio, so I'm told that my vote actually mattered, and it would appear that if you want to make a difference in the election results you really have no choice but to move here. In fact I suspect in a few elections they won't even bother letting the rest of the states vote. They'll just let Ohioans decide for the rest of the country.

So yeah... given the current electoral college I don't blame most of America for giving up. The sad thing is that I've been looking up election maps of the past and it didn't used to be this way. Most of the states (and people in them) weren't programed to vote the same way every time regardless of the issues and Candidates. Almost all of the states used to be swing states, and third party candidates used to have a much bigger presence in election results.

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.

The idea that fewer people are voting nowadays than were decades ago is a myth. The proportion of Americans who vote is still roughly the same as it always has been.