For those who feel their vote does not matter

[Skybird]

Yu deceive yourself, allowing emotions to replace sober thinking here just because it was a close call - as if that really would mean anything! Your vote is worth 1 divided by total number of ballots. And if you, the individual, would not have gone voting, the result still would be the same.

When you yell at a time of heavy traffic, nobody will hear you. Do it in the night when evertyhing is silent, and you will be heard. Now this may lead you to thinking that at night you yell louder and that the world listens to your precious voice. But you deceive yourself on your own relevance there.

And other, basic and profound problems ith general elections and letting every Peter and every Paul have his say on something he has no clue of, are not even tackled here.

The problem also is the very system itself that is behind it, and that you legitimise by the mere act of voting, it doe snot matter which party you choose or which candidate. Give your ballot, purifiy yourself and go to heaven - and enable the crooks and gangsters in the background to continue with what they have done all the time.

Trump or Clinton - that is not the core of things. Thats just they cosmetical surface.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

And other, basic and profound problems ith general elections and letting every Peter and every Paul have his say on something he has no clue of, are not even tackled here.

What do you suggest?

[ikalugin]

I think this is more of a problem in the first past the post/winner takes it all system vs proportional system.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

I think this is more of a problem in the first past the post/winner takes it all system vs proportional system.

If you are referring to the Electoral College, this decision is entirely up to the individual states. Each state has the right to assign its electors in a matter set by that state's law. Two of our states, Nebraska and Maine choose a modified proportional way of allocating electors. The rest of the states choose a winner take all method.

Why?

The answer may be as simple as that's the way it has always been done.

I think that if each state were to allot their electors in a strictly proportional manner it would be more representative of that state's population and give third parties more representation.

Hmm maybe that's why most of our state legislators (made up primarily of Democrats and Republicans) choose a method that favors a two party system>

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Hmm maybe that's why most of our state legislators (made up primarily of Democrats and Republicans) choose a method that favors a two party system>

Not maybe, but surely. Every monopolist bends and designs the rules so to favour his interests. And his interest is to defend his monopoly and the profits that come with it.

That so many people buy this and fall for this proves my argument that the best service voters can do to the community is - not to vote. Where voters vote, irrationality, cluelessness and incompetence become ruling paradigm. Elecitons do not push the bets of the best, th most sutiable, to higher ranks, but the most unscrupulous, the lowest characters, the uncaring chesaters, the bigm ouths, the false messiahs promising that money and honey will rain down from heaven.

I go even one step further. If people are stupoid enough to even believe and excuse these^ claims and manners, they should be forbidden to vote. They help to raise the scum to the top, to lend from a quote by Hayek.

Elections simply do not find empirical justification in the results they create. Or as Brennan says: democracy and elections in it must be judged not by their claims on what they insist to be in meaning and relevance, but by their objective results - and the results are just not good enough.

Think of it. The mere idea to let somebody who has no education and understanding whateve ron the role anbd meaning of moiney or on economic base concepts, have a however minimal influence on both money and economy, is aburd. Insane. You do not ask 80 year old aunt Mary on her opinion about the right approach of a 747 on Chicago O'Hare. But you let cast polticla influence on running the economy, something that even most claimed Nobel economy laureats do not understand...???

There are most fundamental, most profound dilemmata to be faced. I do not claim to have a solution, and maybe there even is no oridnary soltiuioon to the state of things we are in (remember, I mentioned a dilemma). But I can claim that 13 + 5 is not 5, and I can prove it. I can claim and prove that even without necessarily knwoing the correct result of 18.

Sometimes, chaotic reconstruction, sometimes destruction iof the petrified old wroing ways are part of the solution, and the solution is to see something new, unknown grow in the free space that the revolution forced open. I beleive to know only one thing for sure: Our current ways and paradigm -. and the sheer size of global population - lead into our penultimate collapse.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by u crank

What do you suggest?

Bypassing political parasitical castes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanseatic_League

Just to wave at one possible direction without writing long novels once again.

Also, again, these links:

http://jasonfbrennan.com/book/ethics-voting
http://jasonfbrennan.com/en/book/against-democracy
https://mises.org/library/democracy-god-failed-1

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Bypassing political parasitical castes.

Any type of political system which excludes voters (means-testing) would be a recipe for an authoritarian government. Deciding who gets to vote would be the ultimate goal and to believe that those decisions would be done fairly is wishful thinking.

To believe that there is a better form of government than democracy requires a belief in a better form of human being than the ones that presently occupy this planet. Self interest and self preservation have been bred into the human species and I see no sign of evolution away from it.

Brennan argues that a new system of government--epistocracy, the rule of the knowledgeable--may be better than democracy, and that it's time to experiment and find out.

My guess is that once the 'knowledgeable' attain power their ultimate goal, like all politicians would be to hang on to that power.

The thing about most democracies is that it doesn't matter who you vote for, politicians basically do and have the means to do what they want. Our only respite is that we can change them every few years. I don't see that changing.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by u crank

Deciding who gets to vote would be the ultimate goal and to believe that those decisions would be done fairly is wishful thinking.

Seems to be a running thing with libertarians.

I found this bit from a review of Brennan's book amusing

those are the words of a child who has fallen in someone else’s ****, spent a few curious moments smearing it around, and now insists that he likes the smell.