State of the US Electorate

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I did not got that spam mail, but your replacing of names immediately came to my mind when reading the starting post's message. Bush junior not only got elected - he even got elected TWICE. Making the same mistake even twice - what does that tell me about an electorate?

That the majority considered him preferable to the alternative. If those are the choices offered, what do you suggest we do?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

That the majority considered him preferable to the alternative. If those are the choices offered, what do you suggest we do?

Boycott both parties, de-legitimise their ways, strip them off their influence and power by civil disobedience, that way render them useless and powerless. They are deeply corrupt, deeply selfish, deeply lobby-infiltrated clubs that both border organised crime. They do not deserve your loyalty nor obedience, nor anyone else's. If the choice is between two evils, none of them becomes less evil just because there is no better alternative. The problem, you Americans often say, is "too much state". I see it a bit more differentiated. The problem is too much political party, too much lobbyism, too much career politicians, to much lack of transparency.

If the Wikileak principle would be victorious throughout the world, there would be no basis for diplomatic services and politicians anymore. Because both can only work in the darkness of lies and deceptions and dishonesty. And lobbying entrepreneurs and businessmen would run an omni-present risk to be pulled into the spotlight of public awareness if they play foul against the electorate, for their own personal profit.

If you skip a bad status quo, you have a chance for imporvements and a chance for failing in seeking for them. If you tolerate a bad status quo, you have guarantee that there will be no improvements.

I refuse to be deceived by liars and thimbleriggers. Falling for them means to become guilty and sharing responsibility for a corrupt, dysfunctional system living on. That'S why I do not vote, but boycott any legitimation process for politicians, and the system itself. My political responsibility as a citizen is to talk to my next one and trying to convince him. Democracy only has a chance to work from the bottom to the top, it does not work from the top down to the bottom. Transparency is an inevitable precondition for it.

If you have only two bad choices, nobody holds a weapon at your sleeve to make you choose, Steve. If you chooce nevertheless, you make a bad choice.

The system is deeply corrupt, beyond repair. Don't vote. Boycot elections. Overturn political parties. Not only in America, but in all Europe and Asia as well (Africa anyway).

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The system is deeply corrupt, beyond repair.

No it's not.

Don't vote. Boycot elections. Overturn political parties. Not only in America, but in all Europe and Asia as well (Africa anyway).

What a lovely idea. Let the 5% fringe who will vote for their candidate regardless decide the election.

[Hottentot]

Not voting is like telling the current government: "keep up the good work, I don't care either way". Writing "Batman" to the ballot makes much more sense if you want to protest.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Hottentot

Not voting is like telling the current government: "keep up the good work, I don't care either way". Writing "Batman" to the ballot makes much more sense if you want to protest.

I thought like that myself, some time ago, but then decided against it. Becasue that way you help to push up the official number for voter participation, by that increaing the legitimiation of the system, no matter your "vote". And that is what it is about for the establishement: to keep the system alive, no matter what you vote for, as long as you just vote and legitimate the system itself by that. For a government it is more difficult to hide and argue agaisnt a low voter turnout. And if those 95% of non-voters, in August's example, would turn against any formed up government by not only not having voted, but punishing it with strict civil disobedience, the givenrment simply has nothing to govern.

Giving an invalid ballot is a form of tolerating the system, even when you are against it. It makes no saense, and compromises your own stand and argument. That why those living by the system want you to vote anyhow, at all cost, no matter what.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

And if those 95% of non-voters, in August's example, would turn against any formed up government by not only not having voted, but punishing it with strict civil disobedience, the givenrment simply has nothing to govern.

Yeah thanks for the idea Skybird but I don't think we'll be following your advice. Unlike perhaps in your country our government is not some separate entity from the people, our government belongs to us so to punish it, is in effect, to punish ourselves.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

Yeah thanks for the idea Skybird but I don't think we'll be following your advice.

Checking the statistics of elections of the past century I see that between 45 and 70% mof your citizen allowed by age to vote, did not vote at presidential election. And Midterm elections usually only around athird of your legitmited citizens is voting, two thirds are not.

Unlike perhaps in your country our government is not some separate entity from the people, our government belongs to us so to punish it, is in effect, to punish ourselves.

I forgot that you belong to those persons that cannot see the diffedrence between themselves anmd other persons or organisation. Sorry for that. It is written in your holy historic papers that it shgall be like oyu said, so it must be like that. You also have juristic holy papers saying that crime is forbidden, that's why you have no crime in America.

Why do you even maintain a police?

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Giving an invalid ballot is a form of tolerating the system, even when you are against it. It makes no saense, and compromises your own stand and argument. That why those living by the system want you to vote anyhow, at all cost, no matter what.

It appears we are talking about two different things. My point concerned a bad government mostly. If you oppose the policies of a government but don't vote at all just because, for example, you can't find "the lesser evil" candidate, then the old government will probably just think everything is OK and everyone is happy with them. As far as I know, the policitians are optimists. They don't usually stop and think "hey guys, we're doing it all wrong". That's what they need the opposition for, no matter in what form.

Whereas, if I understood correctly from that quote, your point is more about the democratic system and the mistakes in it. In that case opposing the system by not participating at all seems more valid for me too. But so far I have nothing against the system itself, so I didn't think it that way.

[Gammelpreusse]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I thought like that myself, some time ago, but then decided against it. Becasue that way you help to push up the official number for voter participation, by that increaing the legitimiation of the system, no matter your "vote". And that is what it is about for the establishement: to keep the system alive, no matter what you vote for, as long as you just vote and legitimate the system itself by that. For a government it is more difficult to hide and argue agaisnt a low voter turnout. And if those 95% of non-voters, in August's example, would turn against any formed up government by not only not having voted, but punishing it with strict civil disobedience, the givenrment simply has nothing to govern.

Giving an invalid ballot is a form of tolerating the system, even when you are against it. It makes no saense, and compromises your own stand and argument. That why those living by the system want you to vote anyhow, at all cost, no matter what.

Yeah, some time ago I thought exactly like you. But then I told myself that everybody can moan and whine and boycott. Not a lot of effort involved, either. So instead of going on with the easy way out, I joined a party and now try to involve myself, to make a little difference here and there. It may be not much, but it certainly is better then shaking fists all the time over a system that does not suffer from systematic structural failures, but too much cynicism and not enough idealism and people willing to lift a finger for it. The same kind of problem every system composed of humans has after a while no matter how well constructed it is.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Gammelpreusse

Yeah, some time ago I thought exactly like you. But then I told myself that everybody can moan and whine and boycott. Not a lot of effort involved, either. So instead of going on with the easy way out, I joined a party and now try to involve myself, to make a little difference here and there. It may be not much, but it certainly is better then shaking fists all the time over a system that does not suffer from systematic structural failures, but too much cynicism and not enough idealism and people willing to lift a finger for it. The same kind of problem every system composed of humans has after a while no matter how well constructed it is.

20 years ago or so I was for a short time member of the CDU as well. After just one year and having seen all the internal Seilsachaften at work, I was healed that idealism you are expressing. You cannot move anything in a party without ppower. And you cannot come to power in a party if you do not follow it'S written and unqwritten rules, makes deals with other peole pushing their careers, and allow to get corrupted yourself.

Parties and work inside them and from them, does not solve probölems. Political parties are one of the most dominant reasons why these proiblems even exist. They should be forbidden, immediately. No member of parliament should be allowed to be member of a political party, religious group or economic lobby.

You probbaly know the German saying "Politicians solve prohblems that without them would not even exist".

Right that.

Loose connection but anyhow:
For you, and those who understand German:
http://www.welt.de/debatte/henryk-m-...r-Politik.html

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Hottentot

Not voting is like telling the current government: "keep up the good work, I don't care either way". Writing "Batman" to the ballot makes much more sense if you want to protest.

No, not voting means that you are either too dumb to understand the issues or are too lazy to make up your own mind, or have no interest in making our governmental system work.

I am an election official and I can tell you that "batman" votes accomplish nothing. They are not a protest, no one cares, nothing will change. It just shows that you are kinda dumb actually.

If you want to protest, try to do some research and find a way to protest that may actually accomplish something.

[Tchocky]

If I were registered to vote, I'd send these clowns a message by staying home on election day and dressing up like a clown.

[Skybird]

Platapus,

No, voting means that you are either too dumb to understand the issues or are too lazy to use your own mind, or have no interest in creating a chance of replacing a rotten and corrupted governmental system that sees lobbies and "Seilschaften" in power and control and the electgorate's will being minimised - by money.

You are an election official and thus you should be able to tell us that voting the same parties over and over accomplishes nothing than keeping this rotten system alive, and keeping the same corrputed types of characters in control. They are not m akiung a difference, no one cares, nothing will change. It just shows that you are kinda dumb actually.

If you want to chnage something, think outside the wanted established ölanes that ar designed to make sure that the basis of the power for the establishement does not get put into question. Try to do some research and find a way to convince others and theyx convionce their freidns, and tghese convince theirs - until you are a majority strong enough to enforce disloayalt to the established power factions and civil disobedience is being run by so many people that those profiting from maintaining the status quo of power politics can no longer maintain their personal power agendas and their secret quzest to make their own benefits and profits and powers everlasting, at the cost of the nation, the people and the next generations.

If you stay loyal to corrupted people, you become an accomplice yourself. If you help to keep structures allowing and ecouraging the corruption of power and the tailoring of the legislation to protect this, you become an accomplice. And if you risk your own head for defending those corrupted elites that dominate your nation since decades and errect a global network of conmtrol and dominance, then you become also an accomplice, yes, but even more important is that you act - dumb.

Find something more useful than helping organised crime, if you want to help your people and serve them. Thneir are many opportunities to do so which are needed, and noble and honourable. I did that, too. And sure as hell it was no work for a political party - because by doing that, you do not collect merits, but shame.

[Gammelpreusse]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Platapus,

No, voting means that you are either too dumb to understand the issues or are too lazy to use your own mind, or have no interest in creating a chance of replacing a rotten and corrupted governmental system that sees lobbies and "Seilschaften" in power and control and the electgorate's will being minimised - by money.

You are an election official and thus you should be able to tell us that voting the same parties over and over accomplishes nothing than keeping this rotten system alive, and keeping the same corrputed types of characters in control. They are not m akiung a difference, no one cares, nothing will change. It just shows that you are kinda dumb actually.

If you want to chnage something, think outside the wanted established ölanes that ar designed to make sure that the basis of the power for the establishement does not get put into question. Try to do some research and find a way to convince others and theyx convionce their freidns, and tghese convince theirs - until you are a majority strong enough to enforce disloayalt to the established power factions and civil disobedience is being run by so many people that those profiting from maintaining the status quo of power politics can no longer maintain their personal power agendas and their secret quzest to make their own benefits and profits and powers everlasting, at the cost of the nation, the people and the next generations.

If you stay loyal to corrupted people, you become an accomplice yourself. If you help to keep structures allowing and ecouraging the corruption of power and the tailoring of the legislation to protect this, you become an accomplice. And if you risk your own head for defending those corrupted elites that dominate your nation since decades and errect a global network of conmtrol and dominance, then you become also an accomplice, yes, but even more important is that you act - dumb.

Find something more useful than helping organised crime, if you want to help your people and serve them. Thneir are many opportunities to do so which are needed, and noble and honourable. I did that, too. And sure as hell it was no work for a political party - because by doing that, you do not collect merits, but shame.

And then? All you manage to do by that, in the unlikely case you are successful with that, is to create another establishment, and the whole game begins anew. And 60 or 70 years later another Skybird comes along. Hardly lots of perspective offered by that.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Platapus

No, not voting means that you are either too dumb to understand the issues or are too lazy to make up your own mind, or have no interest in making our governmental system work.

I am an election official and I can tell you that "batman" votes accomplish nothing. They are not a protest, no one cares, nothing will change. It just shows that you are kinda dumb actually.

If you want to protest, try to do some research and find a way to protest that may actually accomplish something.

Voting is asking the people to tell their opinion. The best way to protest in voting would be to find a candidate that stands against the things you want to protest against.


However, when Finland will have elections soon, I'm (at least at the moment it seems so) still going to vote Batman. Why? Because I have done research. I don't like the major parties, so I won't vote them. Then there are the smaller parties. One of them is very prominent and it is speculated that most of the protest votes are going to them. Some people I know have said that they are going to vote for this party just because it gives a message that the people want change.


I'm not going to vote that party either, because yes, they stand for change, but no, their change isn't the kind of change I want. I know you can't always find a perfect party and I agree with them on some issues as well, but I don't want to vote for something that I also clearly oppose. Moreover I don't trust them: anyone can run their mouth from the opposition and find problems in the current system, but I'm still waiting for them to prove they'll get results too. The other minor parties, on the other hand, are too much into "we care about this one single thing in the society and anything else is not relevant for us" thinking for my liking.


The elections are still some time away, but if they were to be held now, I would vote for Batman. I don't want to give a message that I support the current government even enough to not care either way, so I'm going to vote. But neither do I want to vote something I don't actually support just because it's "change" or "different" or whatever. It's doesn't even have to be a protest, it is an opinion. And that's what they wanted when they decided to hold elections.


If my opinion is not that of the majority and, for example, this prominent new party is going to get elected, then so be it. That's democracy. But I'm not going to boycott democracy just because I don't like the current parties or candidates.