... given that the difference between Republicans and Democrats is the difference between Coke and Pepsi. No matter who gets elected, the same basic agenda is pursued. Even a third party would make no difference.

For example, Reagan. Conservative of Conservatives. Yet in 80's he apppointed Greenspan to head the Federal Reserve System, which is utterly unconstitutional. A true outsider would have repealed the Federal Reserve System and its endless fiat money. None of them question the premise of the FRS, the disagreement is whether to cut interest rates or increase them, agreeing with the fundamental goal of debasing the currency.

"They" agree on the basics, and disagree on meaningless trivialities. In Washington DC, the debate is not whether we should radically change our foreign policy but rather where to commit our forces. Country A, B or C. The disagreements they have are meaningless, the issues they raise are meaningless and the "approved" method for effecting political change are also meaningless. This explains voter apathy. No real important issues are discussed in today's political climate - and this is no accident.

Anybody who raises issues outside of the "approved" narrow political spectrum is never heard, never even gets to the primaries. Instead we are stuck with meaningless national debate within the meaningless framework defined by someone else, consisting of false dichotomies.

If voting is meaningless, non-voting is meaningful. Despite media propaganda "Your vote counts, and you must vote, etc." It has significance because you communicate your dissatisfaction with the system. It is saying more than "none of the above", but also "I think this is stupid and I am not going to participate".

 

Nice, and thoughtful.

I think a 3rd party (however impossible in my lifetime) is the potential solution. I'm talking about a radical changes ( tax code, drug policy, immigration, etc.) kind of candidate though, not just another lying Dem/GOP clown.

Libertarian Harry Browne comes to mind.

If you think that's a joke then it proves the point. We'll never have a viable 3rd party, just more of the same donkey-elephant BS.

Carpe_diem please vote anyway, they (pols) don't care if we think they're stupid, they just need more of the people who do vote to reelect them, in the lessor of two evils sham our democracy is.

 

sorry double clicked

 

I respectfully disagree. We live in the finest country in the world. The people who run this country, its states, cities, counties, etc. are all elected by us or appointed by the polititians we elected.
However dissatisfied you may be with the reigning polititians, you can be assured that they were elected by the majority vote. We as individuals have to accept the idea that just because WE aren't happy with a policy doesn't mean everybody else is unhappy. As long as the majority like it, everyone else has to accept it. Voting = Democracy

 

Until we change and we never will the "winner take all by Congressional District" method for electing our leaders there will never be meaningful "minority " representation in our government. Our system dictates that every political battle must ultimately be between the two most likely candidates.
This no accident. Confining the debate is the product if not the reason itself.

As I heard someone tell me once, "we have only one party in this country, the capitalist party".

 

I will always vote "green party" or "3rd party" in a presidential election. I do want to see another party get government funding to compete with the others. I understand that it could mean that three people are lying to me instead of two, but that is a risk I will take. If everyone that didn't believe in voting got together and voted for one person, that would make history. I'm not in to the stats. of it but a little over 50% nationwide normally turn out to vote.

I cannot see how voting has stayed in the dark ages for so long. Why can't we vote over the phone or the internet. Use your drivers license # with your SS#. If you don't have a license and/or a ISP then there should be a plan B in place. I think it all comes down to the wealthiest few who feel if you have to go to this place to vote less people will show up and have a better chance of winning.

 

The people can't get together and vote for a third because they're afraid that if they do, they are taking away votes from the one they like more and the one they don't want will win. Remember Ross Perot?

The simple answer to why we show up to vote? Fraud. They even want to give illeagles in my state drivers licences so that they can vote easier.

 

pbrstreetg,

I am voting by non-voting. Non-voting is a viable way of expressing your preference and mine is "none of the above".


jskufan,

I don't believe in democracy, rather constitutional republic where the majority does not rule. Democracy is the corrupt version of republic, and IMO the least desirable method of government.

The focus here is deeper than the inadequate choice of candidates. It is not that A,B,C are running and I want to vote for Z. I think the very nature of the system denies meaningful political representation to the majority.

Case in point, the intervention in Iraq. The majority was against it. And still is. If you start a poll here, the majority here will be against it. My issue here is that the voting system allows the status quo regime to circumvent the desire of the majority and redirect us into action which is against our best interests. Neither I, nor the majority believes that jeopardizing American lives and expending our "$" in some Middle eastern country serves us, yet that's exactly what happens. Our will is circumvented and then they manufacture statistics to show 89% of support.

Regardless whether you support him or not, the important thing is, did GBW ask for your consent when going to Afganistan or Iraq? I wasn't asked. My input is irrelevant. No matter how many are dissatisfied, they are all irrelevant. I can vote at the polls and whoever gets elected the next time, will act similarly, just randomy pick a counry to invade, as did GWB's predecessors.

Their method does not rely on democracy or representation. They made up their mind. GWB tried to get UN backing for the conflict and work within UN guidelines. When that didn't occur, never mind the UN we will do it anyway. When they couldn't get the majority to back them, never mind the polls. (Now that no evidence was found of biological weapons, never mind the evidence). To resolve these issues, you have been given voting as a mechanism to get you want you want and I say it self-evidently doesn't work in that capacity. Which is why more than half do not vote at all and rightly so. Iraq is not an isolated case, rather modus operandi of the system.

True, GWB has been elected.
But that's a moot point - if he hasn't, Gore would have been and certainly pursued something similar. It is like voting for **** A or **** B who agree on the same general direction for the party, just disagree on implementation details. Yes, the public does vote for A or B but it doesn't mean it likes them, because that's all the choices it has. Secondly, a lot of people vote _against_ a candidate. Republicans seem to get elected because ppl don't want to see Democrats in office.
Our choices are meaningless. It really doesn't matter who gets elected. Every time you vote you reinforce this meaningless activity which is counterproductive to what you want. (Unless of course you want endless foreign intervention with American lives lost, and 7 trillion "dollar" deficit and trade with commie China and high tax rates and the Federal Reserve System making fiat currency and the rest of the package - in that case, you do in fact get what you want. But I find it very doubtful that the majority likes this radical leftist agenda).

 

Ya' know, sometimes a deserving pol comes along. If you aren't there to vote for him, he can't help the system. If he squeaks in, your non-vote may not allow to stay, or get like-minded people in. You should vote, based on the person who most closely relates to your beliefs, incrementally, it causes change. Apathy just teaches the rascals they have won us over and we can't get it up to fight.

 

Carpe_diem,

You are making several points.

It seems that a large part of your dissatisfaction has to do with the current foreign policy. I don't want to belabor that because it is being debated continually on other threads. I do agree that in some elections, it's difficult to relate to ANY of the candidates and you don't feel great about voting for any of them. This is particularly frustrating when it's a presidential election!
Secondly, I wish we could do away with the "electoral college" and simply go with the popular vote. It seems only fair that the candidate with the most votes should win. This might encourage more people to vote.

 

Carpe,

I must say that I completely agree with the basic premise of your post. In theory, you are exactly correct.

The problem is, we have a system that we must work within, imperfect as it may be.

I think a good example of what kennyrrt is saying in his post is happening right now in Canada.

We have a less than spectacular Liberal (not in the sense of this board) gov't right now, we've had them going on 12 years.

IMHO, one of the main reasons they haven't been voted out is VOTER APATHY. The number of people that fail to vote because they think their vote would be meaningless against the "majority" is enough to win an election 3 times over. If one third of those that don't vote for that reason turned out, we'd finally get a change of gov't in this country.

Waxy

 

jskufan,

I used to feel the same as you, but a few years back I studied the intent of the electoral college, and find it to be, shall I say, not that bad.

One of the puroses of the electoral college is to prevent the large population states from being able to dominate the elections, thus allowing the smaller popuilated states to have a true say in an election. I know this is far fetched, and not likely to occur, but it could.

I had been taught at an early age the main reason the EC was instituted was due to the leaders of the time felt the general population was not intelligent enough to decide, along with the fact it took sometimes months to communicate the results of each local vote in national elections.

I believe it has only happened twice now where the popular vote did not reflect the vote of the EC.

 

rikfish,

I suppose there are always pros and cons to everything. It just seems to be contradictive for someone to win an election when he/she didn't get the most votes. Isn't that what elections are all about? Also, it seems logical that states like California and New York that claim millions of American occupants should have more to say than states like Wyoming or North Dakota. After all, it's not the 50 individual states voting, it's the 300,000,000 Americans voting. Anyway, just a thought.

 

It seems that a large part of your dissatisfaction has to do with the current foreign policy. I don't want to belabor that because it is being debated continually on other threads. I do agree that in some elections, it's difficult to relate to ANY of the candidates and you don't feel great about voting for any of them. This is particularly frustrating when it's a presidential election!
Secondly, I wish we could do away with the "electoral college" and simply go with the popular vote. It seems only fair that the candidate with the most votes should win. This might encourage more people to vote.


The real reason for this post is that I think whoever is after GWB will do pretty much the same things. In 04, they will have an election with several clones, different names, same basic agenda. Good cop, bad cop. These people play golf together.

Elections are decided at the primaries level. Once they appoint someone on that level, the rest is already determined. Like in 96 when George Bush, part II has won the nomination and it was obvious he would loose. Right about the same time I ceased to be a Republican.

Voting reinforces status quo and is unable to generate change no matter how many people want it. "Hobson's choice."




One of the puroses of the electoral college is to prevent the large population states from being able to dominate the elections

Yeah, electoral college is not democratic at all, but then I see that as a virtue, not a vice.

 

the fewer people that get out and vote regularly, the worse off we all are....think about it:

when a liberal cause that gets major attention gets on a ballot, say gay rights, or something of that nature...you get a huge upsurgance of activists voting that otherwise do not vote, this throws the whole system out of balance....here in cali, we had prop 215 (medical weed...) on the ballot a few years back, all the pro-pot groups, high times mag etc... were urging pot heads to go and vote!!!!! the pot head turn out was tremendous, and as a result, prop 215 passed. these people had never voted in their lives (many anyway) and never will again, and the rest of the population just didn't care enough to go and vote themselves, taking the position you laid out, guess what? it only solidified their belief that their vote "did not count". we are going to see the same thing happen with ghey marriage soon enough here in "kaulifownia" (stole from another thread), for the same reasons....


ohh, and for the record tho, i am for legalization and taxation of pot - and no, i dont use it, i want the money for more social programs, and a larger government!