Messages From Democracy's Ghosts 572
There's a strong and historic impulse -- a reflex maybe -- that insists that citizens ought to vote, because it's an important duty (which is true), because it might make a difference (less clear), because it's simply the right thing.
"Just wanted to drop my 2 cents in and say that maybe those who are thinking of sitting out the election should vote Nader," e-mailed Wade."If enough people vote for another party, maybe, just maybe, someone might take notice, and in the next election things could be different. Seems vaguely familiar to me. I think I went through this when I switched OSes...."
Byron Albert wrote that "in the next four years 3 Supreme Court justices will retire. This means that the new president will get to appoint them. These justices will be a major factor in the upcoming years when most of the intellectual property laws and many other things that will impact us (the open source and free software community)."
Scott wrote that he used to think that the individual voter didn't matter too much in the grand scheme of things. "But then I realized that the grand scheme of things was made up of individual voters. It is imperative that every single person vote. If none of the candidates appeal to your personal politics, then write someone -- anyone -- in. If you don't vote, you aren't counted. If you do vote, then you are counted."
But obviously it isn't that simple for me (and others), for reasons relating primarily to integrity, technology and culture. I have growing problems with the idea that the only way for me to be counted is to vote for "someone" or "anyone." Maybe it's time -- to be metaphoric -- to switch political OSes.
Not voting can be as distinctly a political statement as voting. Elections shouldn't be about choosing which candidate we dislike least, or symbolic and pointless exercises in voting for people who can't possibly win, especially in the Corporate Republic's most corporate election. People would truly count if their political system offered them real choices and options, and gave them genuine ways to participate -- if their views were actually heard.
Democracy can be much more than our current incarnation of it. It was supposed to be much more. It deserves better than we're giving it.
Our two-party political system, no longer representative or legitimate, functions as a closed and proprietary system in an increasingly open culture. It represents the interests of three groups (corporations, politicians and journalists) while individual citizens have little role to play. They are merely asked to offer themselves for manipulation, then to support an unsupportable system by voting.
In the last presidential election, only one-third of eligible voters voted. Pundits tell us the non-voters are morally oblivious, stupid or apathetic, though since we rarely hear from them, we can only guess. The people who run politics and media have succeeded in trivializing non-voters, making them appear repugnant and irresponsible, the opposite of moral and idealistic. They are democracy's ghosts, invisible people.
Perhaps the non-voters are acting more consciously than that, their decisions worthy of more respect and more careful consideration. Gore and Bush will often urge people to vote in this election, but they won't talk much about why so many people don't. They don't dare.
Being a free-thinking individual doesn't mean taking a single position -- like the belief that voting is a moral imperative -- and always adhering to it. In part, it means recommitting to decisions, considering them anew each time.
The current political system doesn't promote democracy by encouraging debate and diversity. It stifles debate and diversity by limiting the participants to two people from two parties who espouse only slightly different versions of two ideologies: liberalism and conservatism, both to my mind equally discredited and outdated.
It operates by character assassination; it uses technology to promote negative and distorted imagery. Its elemental ideology is marketing, not morals. It's become possible to discuss ideas and solutions in the mediasphere. One day, perhaps, the Net will offer a new kind of space for a different brand of politics. I believe it will. But it doesn't yet.
People e-mail me that they'll vote for one candidate or another because of particular issues like abortion, gun control or legislation affecting the environment. That makes perfect sense, but that rationale is a far cry from the original ideas of the people who created the political process. Jefferson would have thrown himself into the Potomac if he thought that this would be the justification for participating in participatory democracy.
This election especially highlights an ugly truth about American politics, argue mathematicians and voting theorists Donald Saari of the University of California at Irvine and Steven Brams of New York University. In a Discover Magazine article called "May The Best Man Lose," Saari and Brams contend that the voting protocol used in America is fundamentally flawed.
The problem, the mathematicians say, lies in the voting system itself, and the way it thwarts the popular will. Voting theorists have recognized the weakness of the plurality system for centuries, argue the authors. Although few Americans learn this in their high school civics classes, there are many alternative voting systems in the world. And they tend to attract a much higher percentage of voters.
In our system, the winner often amasses only a plurality, not a majority, of the votes. Bill Clinton, for example, won the presidency with 43% of the vote; Jesse Ventura won the Minnesota governorship with 37%. The plurality winner could be everybody else's least favorite candidate. As Saari puts it, "the plurality vote is the only procedure that will elect someone who's despised by almost two thirds of the voters."
This may explain why so many people feel it's pointless to vote. A majority of Americans, for example, have repeatedly supported abortion rights, yet their popular will is continually challenged. The system doesn't, in fact, respond to the majority will, often permitting a plurality to supplant it.
The current process personalizes civics, reducing it to an image-spinning contest between two camps who apparently have few coherent or consistent values, whose candidates' public personae change almost weekly to reflect the latest polls.
Perhaps November will be more meaningful if large numbers of Americans deliberately choose not to participate in this election, and make their reasons known, rather than shrugging and ignoring it. Perhaps then, the Beltway might really buckle a bit.
It would also be admirable if non-voters found alternative means to support a democratic political system -- running for office, supporting a better crop of candidates, founding and supporting alternative political parties, using technology perhaps to do all of the above. The Net certainly offers some new machinery for that, perhaps a real chance to re-democratize democracy. That won't be easy, though. The alienating nature of our politics is deep and destructive.
What's clear is that the two major candidates manipulate a handful of issues -- abortion, the environment and the judiciary come to mind -- to promote the idea that they have substantial differences when, in fact, they have few. Since both parties are dependent on the same sources of funding, read the same market research, both edge closer to the same positions all the time, at least in public.
Mass political marketers, using the latest polling technologies, and dependent on televised and other images, have driven ugly, fat or odd-looking people out of national politics.If you're not blow-dried, you don't make the cut. That means the prettiest people get to run for president, not the smartest or most idealistic. American political candidates all wind up as militant moderates, hewing close to the center. Neither party offers a radically different approach or vision of the future. Neither has any appetite for addressing expensive or complicated social problems, apart from pandering to parental fears about technology or the fears of the vulnerable elderly. What remains is a media popularity contest that focuses on two issues: Is George Bush intellectually unprepared for the job? Is Al Gore smarmy and obnoxious? So far, the answer to all those questions seems to be yes, but that's hardly a rallying cry for democracy. Or a persuasive argument for voting.
Both candidates continually exploit fears about children and promote ignorant, Luddite views about technology and culture. Both candidates and their running mates advance the dishonest idea that technology and culture are endangering the young, undermining values and education. Lieberman is demanding that Hollywood alter the nature of filmmaking and marketing. Gore is advancing the idea of "cultural pollution." Bush has lamented that the Net can turn the heart of a child dark and murderous. Cheney has criticized Lieberman for not being rabid enough in his attacks on popular culture. No one has made an intelligent or coherent statement about a single one of the many increasingly significant issues that revolve around technology. Their economic and other visions and policies and politics seem ill-suited to a virtual, hyper-connected world, the one that's coming.
I once loved going to my neighborhood polling place. I look forward to the day when I will have the chance to vote for a candidate who speaks honestly, who grasps the centrality of technology and culture in our time, and is willing to raise those important issues in a rational way. That person is unlikely to come out of Washington, or the existing political structure, and is more likely to have grown up reading a site like this.
This fantasy candidate will be neither a "liberal" nor a "conservative" but an original thinker, perhaps one who has used technology all his or her life to test ideas, and take advantage of all that liberated information. He will be an enthusiastic free-marketeer, championing environments that reward opportunity, individuality and creativity. He will offer sane and fair-minded solutions, resist religious and political dogma. He wll fight for the equitable distribution of technology and use it to re-democratize democracy. Instead of branding them stupid and offensive, he or she will fight for the mostly younger people who are building the Net and the Web. He will not be in thrall to corporate contributors.
Actually, I think that such a person will pop up, and pretty soon. When he does, he will generate a tide of money and support, and begin to transform politics into something people want to participate in, rather than a dreary duty. Maybe a person like Tristan Eversole, a college student, who e-mailed me his idea about using the Net to re-invent politics:
"In my opinion, the most amazing thing about the Open Source Movement is the fact that a whole bunch of people came together from different locales and voluntarily created something. No profit motive, no political support. The end product is superior. This is unprecedented. That people actually submit code, that that code can be integrated into a cohesive whole, that people voluntarily debug it ... I can't think of any historical parallel."
"People have many ideas about how a fair and just society can come to exist and govern itself. Your articles [and the responses] prove that. There is no good reason why we can't integrate, test, and argue these ideas into a coherent political system or public policy ... it should be possible to create a similar site [to Slashdot and other open source sites] dedicated to providing a forum for political debate, distilling the most important news about global problems, putting interested people in contact with experts on particular problems, providing an accurate and objective picture of the state of the world, and slowly creating an archive of really good ideas on how major problems should be dealt with. Many care enough to make such a site viable.
Tristan seems to have an intuitive grasp for big political ideas. He said he'd divide politics into two aspects: the ethical (what should we do about a particular issue in the moral sense), and the technical (how should we implement a rational policy?) This kind of thinking is in shocking contrast to the closed-minded and manipulative posturing that passes for politics in the other world.
"I'd love for there to be a site dedicated to finding the truth about the real state of the world; I'm considering creating one eventually," Tristan wrote.
If he runs, he's got my vote.
Vote. I don't care for who, just vote. (Score:2)
Perhaps November will be more meaningful if large numbers of Americans deliberately choose not to participate in this election, and make their reasons known, rather than shrugging and ignoring it. Perhaps then, the Beltway might really buckle a bit.
If large numbers of Americans deliberately choose not to vote, than large numbers of Americans will be completely ignored by the system. Nobody who matters reads not voting as a sign of dissent, they read it as a sign of apathy.
What they count as a vote of dissent is a vote for something other than the main candidates. The people in charge listen to large third party turnout. The third parties don't get any closer to real participation, but the major parties lean closer to the third party positions to try to coopt a vote they consider "swing". Nonvoters aren't swing voters, they are ignored.
This year, there are four third-party candidates with significant campaigns, check them out, see if you like any of them more than Al Bush and George Gore:
Ralph Nader [votenader.org], Green Party
Harry Browne [harrybrowne.org], Libertarian Party
Pat Buchanan, [gopatgo2000.org], Reform Party (a good chunk of it, anyway)
John Hagelin [hagelin.org], Natural Law Party (and the rest of the Reform Party)
The Socialist Party is also running a candidate, but I couldn't find a good link.
If you don't like the two big-party candidates, vote for one of these, any of these, I don't care who (personally, I like Nader, but I'd prefer seeing votes for Buchanan than people staying home). If you don't like these, just decide to pick whoever ends up in the last column of your ballot (the Democrats and Republicans usually vie for the first two columns in most states); or write in a vote. Just don't stay home, and don't leave the ballot blank (some states throw blank ballots out uncounted). This is the most effective way to say you are unhappy with how things are, in a language that the media and the candidates actually understand.
----
3rd Party Candidates/OSes (Score:2)
As for who should be in each branch of the government, I like the idea of having the House, Senate, and President as different parties. The Founding Fathers wanted each part of the government to keep watch over the other parts. They wanted the government to move slowly, so that the laws that did get passed were good laws. (One reason why I'm opposed to Gov. Ventura's idea that the Minnesota Legislative branch should become only a single house, rather than House and Senate).
--
Ski-U-Mah!
Why the elected officials (Score:2)
Instead, we have a sort of republic, geared to put up roadblocks to the unrestricted dominance of the largest factions. The intention is that, if you are a small faction (like Linux users, for instance) you are supposed to have stronger representation than just the level of awareness for your cause in the general public.
This does go against social Darwinism- that's why it works. It was pioneered by early American political types who were looking at a number of other cases in which democracy was attempted (on the 'just count everyone' system) and had failed due to the 'evils of faction'. It turned out the problem wasn't to make everyone uniform and identical, but to give the smaller factions enough clout that they don't get so marginalised that they end up desperate and go on the attack (which weakens the overall system).
Re:Democracy and the "savior" (Score:2)
Re:Why not to vote (Score:2)
The question is, given that the votes are counted, what do the numbers mean? I happen to think that votes for Dems or Reps mean zilch apart from the immediate election. However, any and all votes for anyone _else_ means one thing: "Hi! I'm the vote you DIDN'T GET and could have had if you supported THIS platform!"
You'd better believe _those_ votes are counted- by both camps. Politics is serious, winning is everything- you have to think about how to get _more_ votes or you lose.
I want both parties to think they have to crack down on corporate abuses in order to get more votes- I'm voting for Nader. Feel free to express _your_ key issues in the same manner whether or not they match mine- couldn't hurt! :)
Re:The real problem... (Score:2)
The vote must be cast, and cast for the candidate that you think will do best, not the candidate that you think 'is most likely' to keep the candidate you dislike the most out of office.
You're looking at it as if I can have only one candidate that I think would be satisfactory. Just because I think Nader is the best choice doesn't mean that I don't have an opinion on the others. It's not a black-and-white question. That's the real problem here. Take this example:
Perhaps 30% like Gore, but consider Nader preferable to Bush. Perhaps another 30% like Nader, but consider Gore preferable to Bush. Now that leaves 40 percent (or slightly less if you take out votes for other obscure party candidates) that want only Bush. Now, the majority (60%) want either Nader or Gore, and definitely don't want Bush. The way the election system works today though, they'll end up with Bush. That's just plain wrong. That's why we need to change the way the voting system works. People could then vote for their first choice without worrying about bad side-effects of that choice. Either approval voting or the Boorda count would work well for this.
The real problem... (Score:2)
The problem is that voting our conscience can have disastrous results. If I were to vote for Nader, I might as well be directly supporting Bush in this election. Yes, perhaps my vote will help the Green party get some cash next time around, but it will also help put the candidate who is most antithetical to Nader into office by reducing Gore's total count (since Gore would be my next choice). Until the voting system is reformed, there can be no fair election since we can't vote our conscience and still have a clear conscience. How do you get an election system reformed when it's controlled by parties that are determined to keep other parties from having anything approaching an equal voice in the election? The only answer I can think of is "very very slowly." Until such time as we can vote in a fair election, we have to choose between not voting, or voting for someone who really isn't the person we want in office, just to keep the person who we really don't want in office out. Some choice.
Two party system? (Score:2)
In the UK, the Labour and Tory parties are indeed the two major influences, but the Liberals always get a respectable number of seats; the Greens generally get a couple, as do the various Irish, Welsh and Scottish nationalist parties: these influences make sure the major parties gon't go out on too much of a power trip.
--
A message of hope, from the UK (Score:2)
Such things happen. People =can= scream for honesty so loud that it will rock Governments and the powerful.
It's my belief that, someday, America will find it's own Martin Bell, and that such a person could begin to restore credibility to politics. But that is not today. Today, the best the US can hope for is damage control. And, frankly, I don't blame anyone for thinking that's a futile exercise in itself.
(If the US Government in it's entirity can't even get it's own agencies to tell it the truth, then how is the President, as a lone individual, in a position to control anything?)
As I've said before, if US citizens could ACTIVELY vote against ALL candidates, rather than having to passively abstain, we could start to see a difference. If all the candidates combined were out-voted by a "re-open nominations" ticket, the parties would face two options - find CREDIBLE people that are half-way honest, or risk the total collapse of the Government, from a lack of President.
I think that there's enough self-preservation there that the parties would rather learn honesty than learn ruin.
Of course, that option will never appear, so we're left Waiting for Godot, as always, in the hope that what has happened in the UK can happen in the US.
Alternative votes (Score:2)
Yes, they might just take enough notice to add some of his ideas to their future election manifestos. Great idea that.
Personally I think that American politics could do with a real national alternative... Britain's Monster Raving Loony Party [virgin.net] springs to mind as a starting place. It's interesting how some of their ideas have actually been adopted in some form by the major parties. And... that they've had a couple of people voted into local government. Refreshing!
Katz's brilliant solution! (Score:2)
If everyone that agreed with Katz decided not to vote in the upcoming presidential election then we would almost certainly have a better outcome. After all, every idiot that believes that abstaining from the vote is more likely to influence government than voting clearly is a lunatic, and their vote would merely cancel out the vote of a rational person.
People, if you agree with Katz, please do society a favor and stay away from the polls.
Re:Curious (Score:2)
If you really believe this way, then you are perfectly free to excercise your own particular brand of "faith" and not vote.
In fact, anyone who feels that voting for President is akin to voting for Santa Claus should most definitely not vote, if only for the good of the rest of us.
While it is certainly true that belief does not make reality, disbelief can not affect reality either. Unless, of course, you are the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal, in which case I think that I am going to wrap a towel around my head so that you will believe I have disappeared.
I don't feel like being eaten today.
In the meantime there is going to be a real election in just a few days, and the person that gets elected will have the power to send other heavily armed real people all over the world to blow things up. If you choose to believe that the selection of this person is not important (or not real) then don't come crying to the rest of us when the decisions made by this individual affects your life.
We probably won't believe that you exist.
Re:Heinlein may have been onto something... (Score:2)
This proposed solution offers much over our current system, but more than trying to solve the problem of low turnout (which isn't much of a problem, from my perspective), it solves a greater problem...
What kind of people should be making decisions that govern a society?
Should government representatives be chosen by people which have demonstrated no particular concern for the nation? Should representativesbe selected by people who see government as a means of providing for their own sustainance, at the expense of the productive?
or...
Should government representatives be selected by people who have already demonstrated a concern for the nation? Should representatives be chosen by people that have shown a willingness to overlook their own well being for a time, and put the nation's/society's interests ahead of their own?
Which class would you say posed a greater threat to society? Which would be more likely to advocate sound international policy? Which would be more likely to push for a nation of greater liberty for all, passing up the opportunity for entitlements provided begrudgingly by all at the point of a gun?
Nobody is going to take away your ability to vote. This is a hypothetical discussion. Indulge in the theoretical.
Re:Then what's the point? (Score:2)
Who ever said that dishonesty and sociopathy were the coin of the realm? You certainly didn't get that from me, nor from any other libertarian. Your premise seems to be that left to themselves, people will do the wrong thing, most of the time.
I don't believe that for a minute, and I certainly don't go about lying and cheating as a means of conducting my affairs. Further, I don't expect that most of the people I interact with in the course of everyday life are out to cheat me.
People that advocate government intervention in personal affairs, or tremendous bureaucratic social safety nets tend to have a very dim view of humanity.
Whether you like it or not, you chose to be born into a world of social interaction. You may choose to deny the responsibilities inherent in that choice, but I do not, nor does anyone who professes any honest moral position.
Well for starters, I didn't have much choice so far as being born is concerned. Maybe you did.
I certainly don't begrudge the life I was born into. Like most people in the United States, I have it pretty good. I recognize that. But exactly what responsibilities come along with that? In a free society, no person may be forced to accept a debt against his will. All I ask of my neighbors is that they don't interfere with my ability to live my life. They can expect the same from me. I won't ask them to support me in any other way.
I am not such a 'rugged individualist' (interesting that you hurl that like an insult) that I think I can live off the land, or that I see no benefit to cooperation. I recognize and champion the division of labor. I know that people make certain goods better than I could, and I will purchase those goods from them. I also know that I can provide some services better than they could, and they buy from me.
Each of those interactions is for *mutual* benefit. They sell their labor at what they determine is a fair price, and I do the same.
This outlook hardly qualifies me as a hermit or reckloose.
My obligation to society is fulfilled when I act with it's other members in a fair and honest manner. Their obligation to me is the same.
This is exactly what shouldn't happen: (Score:2)
Nuts.
The Republicrats and the Demolicans don't care a goddam about how many people don't vote.
The present system is set up such that if only a minute percentage of the US population votes, one or the other of the only two controlling political parties will still win.
And the game goes on, because the politicians and the bureaucrats all still have a job on Wednesday after the election.
I'm increasingly coming to think that the only thing to do is vote for Nader.
A vote for Gush or Bore is meaningless.
t_t_b
--
I think not; therefore I ain't®
Democracy is NOT about voting (Score:2)
It seems people have been bamboozled into thinking that democracy==voting. When I went on the freedom trail tour in Boston, one of the things that struck me is that the revolutionaries (at least in Boston) had a much more radical idea of democracy. To them democracy was about town hall meetings, about mass civic participation. For example, in the Boston Tea Party, although only a handful of people committed the sabotage, 1/3 of the town of Boston marched down with them to support them! That's a big protest! If, in my lifetime, 1/3 of any town is ever gathered in the same spot to do anything but watch a football game (or go to the mall), I will be (happily) suprised.
In Seattle, we all chanted, "This is what democracy looks like". I think that's true. In response to Shay's rebellion in Massachusetts (those radical Massuchetts people again), Jefferson wrote: "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. . . . The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
How did women get the right to vote? Ever see the the pictures [tcnj.edu] of the suffragists picketing outside the white house? How did blacks get civil rights in the south? Remember the Montgomery bus boycott [holidays.net]? Democracy is when people take power over their own lives, by taking to the streets or, on a more day-to-day level, by getting involved in school boards, in city councils, in town hall, in the local co-operatively owned grocery store.
With due respects to Laurence J. Peter, going to the voting booth doesn't make you a (small "d") democrat any more than going to the garage makes you a car.
Don't vote. Or do vote. Who cares. If you want to make change, tho, don't whine -- ORGANIZE.
Curious (Score:2)
"Fictional entity"? Who do you think is taking all your money, then?
Kantz! You are missing one thing... (Score:2)
Vote 3rd Party (Score:2)
How about a MANIFESTO? (Score:2)
Virtual International Conglomerate Organization
Introducing a different kind of concept in social and commercial organization. 'Virtual International Conglomerate Organization' ("VICO"), is simply a concept I've been playing with for a while now to free us up. I've modeled it after large conglomerate corporations like ITT or Diagio that seem to have their hands into everything. In contrast, VICO is a way for us all to be independent but connected as legal entities in a highly efficient international marketplace. Below is a bit of a manifesto.
VICO MANIFESTO
We work independently. We are incorporated for ouselves. We work together on the internet. We meet in comfortable club/cafe style workplaces or we work from home. Ninety-five percent of membership is initiated by showing up; the other five percent (the leadership) happens if one's ideas are compelling. Our ideas are our tickets to the party. We build our own internet infrastructure. It enables us simultaneously to possess and publish our literature without possibility of relinquishing control. We build our businesses on it and gain the largest distance from large corporate and governmental controls available on the planet. With portable computers in our briefcases and secure servers locked away in a place of our choice, we can operate our businesses with maximum freedom.
We meet where we want. We collaborate when we want, with whom we want. Our wants are limited but specific, and our needs are clear. Neither nation nor border can prevent us from working together at any time. We find ways to make our ideas happen, and our ideas ruffle in the bitstream like leaves in a dense rainforest alluring eyes and minds. Every leaf is easy to find and appreciate. We can gather them at will to make newer and lovelier forms. We are engineers, artists, architects, financiers, writers, organizers... the skillful people. We are the Virtual International Conglomerate Organization.
Outstanding Issues:
Re:Who says the current system isn't working? (Score:2)
> into two basic competing modes of thought.
No prizes for guessing which one you adhere to.
The US political system is like the Game of Life: it was set up with an initial set of rules by which to play, and an initial set of players. Then the founding fathers hit "GO" and off it went. It worked pretty well for a long time, but eventually--like the Game of Life--it reached a final immutable position. Some of the units might still be oscillating (Dems and Reps swapping place every once in a while), but there's no net motion anymore.
As to the recurring theme in this thread that things were DESIGNED to be slow and inefficient to prevent radicals from taking power, think again. There's nothing in the consitution preventing a multi-party system. If there were, there wouldn't be any point in the Greens and Libertarians even trying. The reason things are the way they are is because of the cooperation of the two major parties. They realized that while they fervently hate each other, they would serve their goals better by cooperating to the exclusion of any other parties.
Things are the way they are precisely because the system has started to fail. The immutable status quo is a sign of it. Think back even this century: when was the last time a monumental change such as the New Deal, social security etc came from the two parties that we know now? Today we consider it a milestone if we raise the minimum wage by a dollar. Our political system has reached a level of inactivity and stale mate that is repesenting the will of the majority less and less. And yet things are set up such that there's little we can do about it. What's more, we're conditioned into thinking that we've reached Nirvana, that the way things are is what we've wanted all along.
Re:Unfortunately, the Judiciary trumps your arguem (Score:2)
No, there are no loopholes there.
The courts have simply decided to ignore the constitution when it is convinient to do so. The constitution explicitly states that, except for those powers specificly granted by the constitution, the federal government has no authority to regulate anything.
The (in)famous interstate commerce clause has often been cited as an excuse for the federal government collecting new, unconstitutional powers, but with respect to drugs even that falls down.
California, Oregon, and Washington (among others) have all legalized the medicinal use of marijuana.
Right or wrong, that is their consititional right. However, a man growing marijuana in California, for lawful consumption in California, is not involved in any kind of interstate commerce. Nevertheless, he will be arrested, tried, convicted, and put in jail (it has already happened numerous times -- indeed a volunteer at a clinic is currently living in Canada, seeking political asylum from the US, because she was present when medicinal marijuana was being dispensed, even though she was guilty of nothing more than pushing the wheelchair).
Flagrantly unconstitutional, but that is little comfort when you're being raped by your cellmate during your years of incarceration, waiting for the appeal to work its way up to the supreme court (assuming they'd even be willing to hear it).
With all three branches of the government ignoring the constitution at will, the constitution means very little. Indeed, with half the bill of rights basically eliminated and the other half under concerted attack, this is little surprise.
I may disagree with much of the Libertarian agenda, but one thing they are absolutely correct about is this: It is past time to return our government to the constitutional boundries our founding fathers codified in the constitution. Then, if we really feel we need government to step in and do something (such as healthcare) we can do so as was originally intended: with a consitituional amendment granting the government said authority. Until then our politicians are little more than thieves, stealing money from our pockets and usurping the constitutional rights of the people.
"Active" non-voting NONE OF THE ABOVE (Score:2)
A simple plan. (Score:2)
Bring back political parties.
In years past, political parties were defined by their platforms, and candidates were defined by their party. The party provided discipline in advancing legislation and accountability in local involvement.
This went away, replaced by a generic "independence" that candidates have advanced as the new ethos. It resembles the development of classic 20th century journalistic neutrality, which in reality was a way to sell newspapers to a wider audience. In the same way candidates sought to define their own agendas and sell their personality to the electorate.
One of the main reasons this happened was television. Television provided a mass-media market for political advertising. TV ads became a necessity for almost all candidates, save a few iconoclastic safe incumbents like William Proxmire (who famously spent as little as $200 on his Senate campaigns). TV ads, however, cost money.
A lot of money.
The candidates running for office in the last 20 years have fallen more and more into two categories:
The independently wealthy candidate. This person sells his or her "independence" from the political system, and despite the obvious conclusion that someone with a large personal fortune will tend to represent mainly the interests of those with large personal fortunes, they are immune from the depredations of the other kind.
That other kind, representing an easy majority of national offices today, is the money-grubbing candidate. The money-grubbing candidate is not personally wealthy, or not to the same extent, and as a result must finance the re-election kitty with a steady stream of political appearances and favors. Financing a "small" $1 million House campaign means that a candidate, during two years in office, must raise $10,000 every week. That's a lot of luncheons, or a lot of favors. Unsurprisingly this type of candidate becomes beholden to political contributors.
There are very few candidates today who feel beholden to their political party for very much.
The simple lesson is that with television remaining ascendant, and political parties considered important mainly as a production staff for presidential conventions, candidates become bought and sold. The few who aren't have their own interests first at heart.
Nobody works for the people.
----
Re:the anti-vote? the "i showed up" line? (Score:2)
Voter Turnout Always Low in Incumbent Races (Score:2)
Re:Don't vote unless you've thought about it (Score:2)
We have mandatory voting in Australia. What's good about it? Well, it means that every single adult in the country got out of bed and trundled down to a polling booth. Every adult is partially responsible for the current set of people governing them. I believe that the USA has about 30% voter turnout, and it's my personal opinion that more than 30% of the population of both countries have some idea of whom they'd like in power. In Australia, all the people who think "This seat is going to the Liberals no matter what, why should I bother voting Labor?" get out and vote anyway.
Also, having 100% voter turnout is a huge stabilising influence. The preference of the person who supports a party, but isn't exactly marching through the streets over it, is just as important as that of the person who has absolutely rabid support for someone. It's great to hear from them. In the last elections we had a party called One Nation which may have even made the news slightly in the USA. They had very strong policies on immigration, welfare and race relations which would probably have been rather damaging if they'd won power, but because we have 100% turnout, any candidate needs a majority of the actual populace in his seat to support him, not a majority of the people who can be bothered to vote. This keeps our government stable.
Of course, if you really think all parties suck equally, and you can't find even one to support (there tend to be about 6 lower house candidates for each seat, and about 100 upper house candidates for each state) then you can put a big line through your ballots, or leave them blank, or write a charming message for the scrutineers. But you've consciously said "you all suck!" Your opinion will be counted and noted. Unlike not voting at all, this really means something.
Hat Trick. (Score:2)
Not to put too fine a point on it, if Bush gets elected, he will use his majority in the Senate to appoint judges who will have strong Republican views (Gore will be hampered by Republican strength in the Senate). This will accomplish a hat trick, with Republican idealogues controlling both houses of congress, the executive branch and the judicial branch. This is not necessarily a bad thing, if you are a Republican, but if you're a Green it's going to be a disaster. Gore may not be strong on Green issues, but the Supreme Court will be ruling on many issues of privacy, civil liberties and environment. The substance of their decisions will be very different depending on who is elected President.
I appreciate that voting for a minor party candidate is not a symbolically meaningless. However under the circumstances, if you are to the left of Gore, you'd better truly appreciate the strategic implications of undercutting Gore on the left.
If you are sufficiently disgusted with government, you may find it best to let the pendulum swing entirely away from your cause so that you can polarize the electorate and attract more people to your cause. But Green priorities will be in for some tough sledding for a decade or more.
>It's bad luck to be superstitious.
Who's line is that originally anyway?
I thought of it myself years ago, but I'm sure it's been floating around for ages before that. It's an example of a kind of expression called an "Irish Bull" -- a statement which undercuts its own logical underpinnings. Yogi Berra was famous for them, as was Sam Goldwyn. The best of them make you ponder a bit -- as someone once said, "an Irish Bull is always pregnant."
Re:One man, one vote and why you feel disenfanchis (Score:2)
I believe my explanation was not clear enough. If you go through the example I presented, you'll see that the candidate ranking is irrelevant to approval voting. For example suppose voter A ranks the candidates X > Y > Z. This is the basis for assigning points under Borda IIRC. However it tells us very little about the approval situation (other than that, for example, Y cannot get more points than X). Consider the following scenarios that are consistent with X > Y > Z.
(1) They're all bums. A doesn't approve of any of them. Each gets zero points.
(2) They're all more or less OK. A likes X better than Y better than Z, but in his opinion even Z will do a pretty good job. Each gets one point.
(3) Some of them are OK and some are bums. A likes X, but dislikes Y and hates Z. X gets one point and Y and Z get no points.
Re:One man, one vote and why you feel disenfanchis (Score:2)
1) none of the choices are really very good in this situation, and
Maybe yes, maybe no. The inability to discern whether you have a bad situation or not is one of the problems of the Borda and plurality scheme. It might be that all three choices are superb; or all three are horrible; we can't tell by ranking or by each voter choosing the "best" candidate. Think about it with common sense. The fact that 2/3 of the people prefer someone else doesn't mean a candidate is bad -- 90% of the people may like him but just like somebody else more. This would happen in a strong field of candidates. In a weak field, the fact that a candidate is preferred by 1/3 of the people to the available alternatives doesn't mean that anybody particularly likes him. It's not only that current voting systems cannot express the strength or weakness (in the voters' estimation) of the field of candidates: all preference based voting systems are attempting to decide the undecidable -- chasing a phantom goal which mathematically turns out to be meaningless.
The upshot is that it is a certifiable calamity when somebody is not the preferred candidate of 50%+ of the vote -- you know the system is verly likely going to give an essentially arbitrary result. This is why the XYZ YXZ ZYX split strikes people as a disaster -- because under the most voting systems it very like will be.
2) it will be quite a while before people start doing anything but voting approval for their first choice and disapproval for all the others.
I disagree. Their are probably many folks who are going to vote for Gore who would like to vote for Nader too (I'm one). Their are probably quite a few Nader voters who would be willing to give Gore the nod if it meant stopping Bush.
In our current political culture, why would they do otherwise? They might help their second choice defeat their first.
Yes that is absolutely true, but only under certain circumstances. For example if I like X and Y who are in a close race, and detest Z, who is far behind, I might vote for X only because I'm confident that Z won't come close. Clearly I am not "voting my conscience", because at the end of the day I'd really be pretty satisfied with a vcitory by anyone but Z. Mathemtaically, I don't believe there is such a thing as a voting system in which such strategic voting does not come into play at some time or another.
The effect of strategic voting given your scenario(witholding my approval from my otherwise acceptable second choice to the benefit of my first choice) is minimial in my opinion. It can only benefit a candidate who is very widely acceptable to begin with. You might even say that in a tight race between similar candidates, I could afford to narrow my approval criteria; in a race where there is a strong candidate I disapprove of I can't afford to be as picky.
Not that the Borda system wouldn't be an improvement on what we have, which is about as bad a system as you could devise and still get by being called "democratic". The current system is extremely dangerous because it can routinely give ambiguous results, and either totally squelches minority opinions or occaisionally allows them to hit the strategic jackpot and become the tie breaker between two large coalitions (like the extreme religious parties in Israel). The combination of approval voting and a much larger field of choices than just two would mean that the opinions of minorities would always count, but their opportunities to become kingmakers would be curtailed (although not entirely eliminated) if their support made a candidate unpalatable to many people.
Re:One man, one vote and why you feel disenfanchis (Score:2)
That's a very interesting system. I would say it would be even more interesting if you could use any fractional number adding up to three total! After all, the fact that you are valedictorian doesn't make you twice as smart as the salutarian. Of course you run into the problem people have with addition -- you'd have to normalize every ballot to exactly three.
This system has some merits to be sure, but I don't think they are enough to merit the additional complexity. The problem is that you are reaching again for that idea of the "most preferred" candidate, which I think is mathematically meaningless. If you give the voter a sufficient number of votes, you can begin to treat the data as parametric, which isn't utterly hopeless from the git go as ranking systems, but it is still possible to construct the same kind of rock/paper/scissors scenario. The relation is still non-transitive, which is in my opinion a necessary property of any criteria which decides between three or more candidates.
If however their single vote is so powerfull for some bribed big wig, why is their one vote wasted for a 3rd party? Please explain this to me without giving the "better lizard" bleat.
Your vote is wasted because (1) it will have no effect on the outcome of the election and (2) it is futile as a party building vote because you won't be able to convince the people who can live with exactly one of the two major candidates but who would like to help build some viable third parties to throw away their opportunity to effect an close election. And, by the way, the "lizardness" of the candidates is the result of the voting system they have to succeed in. If it's irrational mush, then the candidates must also be irrational mush to succeed.
Any representative system fails whereas grassroots direct democracy would have administrators executing the will of the people, instead of doing things to them.
Sure, but the you get the same thing in spades when it comes to legislation. There is not an infinite supply of candidates, but there is an infinite number of variations of a bill that can be drafted. This happens all the time in the legislature -- alternative versions of a popular bill "split the vote", leaving the field to an unpopular one.
Legal ways to encourage voting? (Score:2)
Democracy fails at critical mass (Score:2)
Think about the "economics" (in the most general sense" of voting. Carefully considering all the candidates takes a substantial amount of time. Getting to a voting booth and voting takes more time. Your opportunity cost for voting is your time.
What do you gain by voting? A very small chance at influencing an election between two fairly similar candidates. Your effective benefit is the benefit you would gain if you swung the election, times the chance your vote will actually be significant.
As population increases, the power of your vote decreases. At some point, your effective benefit from voting becomes less than your opportunity cost, and it is no longer rational for you to vote.
So should nobody vote? Not necessarily. As less people vote, individual votes become more important. Some people have more to gain from influencing an election (or their time is worth less), so they're more likely to "stick with it" and vote. The result is an equilibrium, where a bunch of people don't vote because it's not worth their time, a bunch more do vote because it is, and a few people are right on the fence...
This suggests that the non-voters could be just as rational as the voters (or perhaps more so)--they just value their time more and their vote less than the voters.
The scary thing is that the people for whom it makes the most sense to vote are those whose time is worthless, or who don't bother to carefully consider the candidates... Explains a lot, doesn't it?
Re:Why not Libertarian? (Score:2)
You totally don't understand the libertarian philosophy. The heart of the libertarian philosophy is personal freedom. Blacks would never have been discriminated against if everyone was libertarian. You seem to be confusing libertarianism with anarchism.
Here's the deal: Government is a player in the economy. Since there have been goverments, they have been players in the economy. Governments will ALWAYS be players in the economy.
Yes, government has a role in the economy, but it's a small one. Government should ensure that there are no monopolies, that trade is honest, and that there are no externalities in markets (or that, if there are, they are compensated for). Externalities are when someone other than the buyer and seller are affected by trade, i.e. kids breathing in lead from leaded gas. In cases such as that, government should impose economic penalties equal to the cost of cleaning up the pollution (and actually clean it up). Personal and corporate responsibilty are keystones of the libertarian philosophy.
Read up more on libertarianism before you bash it. Yes, there are extremists. Ignore them. Every ideology has them...
wow... you are just one little contradiction? (Score:2)
ok... lets see here... you've managed to accuse ralph nader of being both a communist and nazi, great strawman... by usenet rules, this should end this thread...
Based on his past rhetoric, I believe that Ralph Nader thinks, like Bush and Gore, that ordinary citizens are not wise enough to make decisions for ourselves. He thinks that we are sheep, and need to be managed as such. He will receive not vote from me. I'm thinking I'll cast a little protest vote for Harry Browne.
oh geezus ... nader is trying to protect us sheep from being abused... the corporations and big parties are dictating law from a very minority viewpoint. he's trying to give the people a chance to manage themselves again, and not let some large bureaucracy control everything. nader is for much more sum total individual freedom by freeing us from corporate influence.
I mean come on, individuals can not compete for the attention of the political process when their competitor has so much lobbying money and influence that corporations do. companies and industries routinely buy laws and politicians so that they will get the most profit.
these same companies dont have any accountability to the general populace, only to themselves, and therefore dont care about the overall good of the population, only their bottom line.
by supporting the status quo, democrat or republican, you are supporting default enslavement of the populace by the corpocracy. harry browne will only make this worse by allowing corporations to run amok without ANY limits.
tagline
Re:Curious (Score:2)
Computer programs, as well as other intangibles like literary works, exist as a pattern of something tangible (pattern of magnetic domains on a disk, pattern of optically opaque spots on a CD-ROM, pattern of ink on a page).
Is a government an intangible in this way? I guess you could say that a government exists as a pattern embedded in many people's minds. Sort of. The argument is getting close to semantics.
The point, which I may have obscured with an over-generalization, applies particularly to governments. Any definition of government which I know of includes the special feature that a government has a monopoly on the right to do certain things (tax, put people in jail, etc). If by "government" you mean something that fits this definition, then I see no evidence that a "government" exists. If you mean something else, then I don't have any idea what you mean by "government".
There are clearly many people who believe in government. If that means that there is some intangible entity (which either does or doesn't exist, depending on what you mean by "exist"), fine, we agree. But nothing about this implies that the intangible entity has the right to do things that ordinary individuals do not have the right to do, nor does it imply that such an entity exists. I believe that no such entity does exist.
Steve
Re:Curious (Score:2)
Individuals. Individuals who clearly are acting on behalf of an entity that they believe exists -- but it is, in the end, only individuals who are doing whatever it is that people believe the government is doing.
Steve
Re:Fictional entities. (Score:2)
I don't happen to agree with you. But I guess, since you have labeled the issue beyond debate, I must be some kind of hard-headed person for disagreeing.
The fact is that governments, like corporations, partnerships, and organizations (I could go on here, but I think you get the point) do not exist apart from the beliefs of some individuals. They are all just social conventions. Some people believe in the existence of the entities, and that is the only extent to which they can be said to exist. Anything done in the name of one of these entities is done by individuals acting on behalf of the entities.
I pay my taxes. I would rather not be thrown in jail, thank you very much. But my belief in the existence of people who will make my life a living hell if I don't send a check to the appropriate people does not imply that I, in any sense, believe in the existence of the entity on behalf of which all of these people are acting.
I never set out to be an anarchist. For years I attempted to fit governments into a logical view of the world. But I failed, and I am simply admitting that I don't believe in the government or Santa Claus. I am not even sure that my state of mind is what is commonly meant by "anarchist", so I don't generally apply that label to myself (but feel free to label me as you wish).
I also want to point out that not believing in the existence of government does not imply a lack of appreciation for positive things done in the name of that entity. My life is certainly rather posh, as measured against the lives of most other people in this world. I appreciate that. I just don't happen to believe in the existence of that organization.
Steve
Re:Not voting... (Score:2)
I keep responding to essentially the same question, so you may find the answer to your question answered elsewhere in this thread. In short:
People exist. Organizations exist only in the minds of people. People do things in the name of organizations, but such actions are not actions of the organization -- they are actions of the persons involved. One effect of recognizing organizations (such as governments) as real entities is to relieve individuals of responsibility for some of their actions (i.e "the organization did it, not that person").
I never said there was a "better" system. I just said that the government is a social convention -- we don't have to pretend it is real.
Steve
Re:Curious (Score:2)
People acting on behalf of an entity that they believe in does not make that entity real. I know people who act on behalf of one or more gods -- does that prove that all such gods exist?
I believe in trucks. I've seen them. I can touch them. I can't say the same for governments. I have only seen people (that exist), sitting in buildings (that exist), typing out paperwork (which exists in huge quantities). Some of these people have guns (which exist). None of that means that a government exists.
You may believe in a consensual reality in which "we all agree to abide by certain notions," but I believe in an objective reality. I don't believe that makes me either "irresponsible or insane." Please let me know how I should determine which of these "certain notions" I should choose to "abide by" -- I had though that viewing the world and making my own judgments was the proper way to go about it.
Steve
Re:Fictional entities. (Score:2)
"Reality, Elisa, exists only in the mind. That does not make reality any less real."
-- Doug Moensch
Money is also an artificial construct. That dollar bill in your pocket only has the value which you believe it does. If you don't believe your dollar is worth anything, you're more likely to use it for toilet paper than for purchases. (Don't laugh. This actually happened in China during the Second World War, in Europe after the Second World War, and in Russia today.) It's only your belief in the value of a dollar that gives the dollar any value.
And, in turn, other people's belief can affect your life. If the newspaper vendor on the street thinks a dollar is worthless, you aren't going to be able to buy a newspaper from him with it. You might have better luck offering English pounds or German deutschmarks or an Ecu or two. But if you want that newspaper and the newspaperman thinks your dollar is worthless... well, guess what; someone's belief has just affected your reality. The reality is, you don't have a newspaper.
Much of reality is created from our beliefs and has no existence, a priori, of those beliefs. Religion; currency; even basic civilization is all predicated on ideas and beliefs which are as, in the words of one theologian, "impossible to believe; yet without, belief is impossible".
Is government anything more than a collective hunch? No, not really. But then again, reality isn't anything more than a collective hunch, either. So if government isn't real, then it's built on the exact same foundation that reality is and may well be so close as makes no difference at all.
Fictional entities. (Score:2)
When the IRS comes after you and turns your life into a living hell, it might change your mind.
Government's relative good or evil is certainly debatable, but its existence is not.
Been There, Done That, Got The Powdered Wig (Score:2)
That was exactly the way it was done in the beginning. However, with the development of partisan politics, it became obvious that this system just wasn't working out.
First, the 1796 election gave us bitter political rivals as President and Vice President (John Adams and Thomas Jefferson).
Next, the 1800 election produced an electoral college tie when the Democratic-Republican electors all voted for Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. Everybody knew that they meant to make Jefferson President and Burr Vice-President -- it seems that they all thought that somebody else was voting for Jefferson and not for Burr. The election went into the House, where there was quite a bit of bickering; some of the Federalists, who controlled the House, would have been glad to screw over the opposition by voting for Burr. My understanding is that Alexander Hamilton (who considered Jefferson wrong but honorable and regarded Burr as a threat to the Republic) pulled strings to prevent this.
After all this, the Twelfth Amendment [cornell.edu], setting up the current system of separate voting for President and Vice-President, was ratified in 1804.
/.
Re:Competency (Score:2)
Abolishing check-box ballots (all votes are write-in) might be an improvement: It requires you to at least know who you intend to vote for in each race, it eliminates the Republicrat ballot-access law advantage, and it discourages mindless party-line voting.
People who physically couldn't write would need assistance, but some people need that in any case.
/.
Re:Why I'm voting Nader (Score:2)
I agree. I'm in MD. I'm a big supporter of Gore. MD is pretty much a sewn-up Gore state (woohoo).
If anyone out there in a 'swing state' wants me to vote Nader, I will if you vote Gore.
Man, I could see an entire website for such a concept. Where were you last year?!
Votes are indeed close to wasted in locked states, but those of you in the swing states, please set aside your rebellion and vote Gore. The damage Bush will do to the environment, our IP laws, and general societal advancement could very well be irreversable.
News for nerds, does this matter? (Score:2)
IF this were editorial on how President Elect Gore (OK that's a bit of optimism there I know) is going to affect the Internet or technology companies then this would make sense - but it's an internal politics debate much more suited to the news pages of a domestic news site.
Re:Do you know anything about U.S. government? (Score:2)
This reminds me of the old quote "The difference between theory and practice is that, in theory there is no difference, and in practice, there is."
If we both grant there is a problem (which you seem to do), then saying it is the electorate gets us precisely nowhere, because we can't fix the electorate. Or at least, it is a grody brute-force problem. We can however tinker with the system.
On an important level, what you're saying is that the problem resides in real people not behaving like the idealized people the system was designed to accomodate.
I agree with you 100% that organizing and getting out the vote is effective, and I have written extensively about that here in the past. However, it seems obvious to me that any system which requires organizing and "getting out the vote" has some pretty fundamental flaws. Quite simply, it is biased and easily manipulable in unjust ways: any time someone (or some natural circumstance) tips the balance against some demographic's ability to participate, they get screwed.
The classic case of deliberately doing that is the Poll Tax, instituted in the South to keep poor Blacks from voting (since banned as an impediment to democracy). But one need not deliberately manipulate people's legal recourse to polls to mess with the electorate. Just about any issue winds up aligning along class, age, and/or employment status. If any of those factors bear on one's ability to organize politically, it will tip the balance.
For instance, retirees have more leisure time to follow political issues, so are more likely to vote in a coordinated fashion than, say, busy single moms who work two jobs -- who don't have the time to get more than sound bites out of the news. It may not seem like a big deal, but small trends like that add up big time at the polls.
Our system is punative against people who cannot or will not organize, who do not have the time or information access.
Some democracy.
Re:Do you know anything about U.S. government? (Score:2)
They don't have to listen if the average citizen is uninformed (either willfully or not). Certainly it is every citizen's duty to be informed, but it is just as underhanded for politicians to dodge, and bury the important issues, and blow smoke. Democrats and Republicans *haven't* been listening. That's why there are third parties.
I don't think that necessarily follows. Even if it were so, the political system is far too polluted by large amounts of money, which usually come - you guessed it - from large corporations pushing an agenda. Corporations are not people. They shouldn't get a vote, and they shouldn't be able to influence government (other than individual employees/stockholders voting independently).
OR...because people are not even *aware* of them, and the issues they are bringing up. Perot (not that I supported him) got a huge jump in the polls after he was on the debates. I'm absolutely sure Nader, or any other third party would poll much much higher if they got the same exposure as the Democrat and Republican party. Hell, all I hear about the New York senate race is Lazio this and Hillary that. Not ONE mention of Mark Dunau, the Green candidate. Nada, nothing. How could somebody *possibly* make an informed decision if they are not even made aware of all the candidates? Of course this awareness is not something the Democrat/Republican duopoly really wants to push. They're happy with their monopoly on "free" network exposure.
I challenge you to go up to somebody on the street (first of all, find a voter), who is voting Republican and Democrat and ask them *why* they are voting that way. Ask them about their opinions of the alternative views of third party candidates. The fact is, most Americans pick their candidates like soda beverages from 30 second commercials, or the "debates" (which is really just a set of prescripted answers to prefiltered questions). I can guarantee you that if third party candidates were ever to get as much exposure as the other two parties, you would find that a much higher percentage of people agree with them. It's a vicious cycle that those in power have (at least indirect) control over the media, and over the voices of those not in power (*cough* Commission on Presidential Debates *cough*).
Futility (Score:2)
If you want to change the system, you have not only a moral obligation, but a practical obligation to vote your conscience. Right now the two party system has a duopoly on your mind and on your vote. Don't let them take your power, or take you for granted.
Re:Not voting... (Score:2)
Sure, you don't have to believe in the system. You don't have to participate in the system. Perhaps you are fighting the system from outside.
But short of an external military coup (which ain't gonna happen), there *is no* effective way to change the system than by participating in it. You might hate it, but you will have to participate in it if you want it changed. And if you think that the government is fictional (at least the US one), your friendly IRS audit agent, or cop will quickly remind you otherwise. As stated in a recent article by a libertarian:
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so SICK AT HEART, that you can't take part; and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus and you've got to make it stop." --Mario Savio
Re:Not voting... (Score:2)
No...if you make the population apathetic, they won't *care* if the government is criminal. That's what apathy is about. The more odious agencies of our government chronically engage in criminal behavior and nobody has "killed" them.
Every time somebody opts out, the system says "Ha, sucker, just one less to interfere with us". It's a gigantic positive feedback loop: people opt-out, bastards get elected, people get disgusted, people opt-out... Hey - opt-in! Opt-in BIG TIME. Or, as Nader says: "If you don't turn on to politics, politics will turn on you."
Not Voting (Score:2)
Today, if you'd ask a random person if they think there's a credible possibility that their rights will be significantly erroded in the next four years, probably at least 95% would say No.
--
Re:Abstinence makes the biparties grow stronger... (Score:2)
Or at least, that's my rationalization about why politicians refuse to entertain the idea that statistical polling could be accurate.
--
Re:Not Voting (Score:2)
You don't moderate up a post that has a score of 3 if you think it should be there at 3. (this is even more relevant at Kuro5hin)
Same thing in the US. The US government is pretty okay by most people, so there's no reason to take the effort to try to induce a change.
--
Re:how is this insightful? (Score:2)
They take that money out of your paycheck to pay for the military to prevent someone else invading and taking away your rights. They do it to pay for police that prevent other citizens from taking away your rights. They do it to pay for education for everyone, because a more educated populace is more likely to understand and respect these rights. They use it to fund a system that supports people who need a safety net so they can still eat and get medicial care and have shelter, and if you ever need it, they're supporting your rights to them.
Look, nobody agrees with every place tax money goes, but if you think the only way to benefit from the money is to have it personally, then you don't understand how things work.
---
Re:Not voting... (Score:2)
So please explain how your lack of participation does anything to change that system?
I think a vote for someone who wants to change the system is a clearer message of unhappiness with it than not voting. It's surely not easy, but there still is a way to use the system to change itself, should enough people desire to do so.
---
Re:Not voting... (Score:2)
I woudn't put it so bluntly, but yes. It's been said that in a democracy (or whatever facimilie we currently have), "people get the government they deserve". If they don't care about who gets elected, whoever gets elected won't care about them. If you don't want to fight for your individual rights, the government won't fight for them either.
When you think of it, the people who get elected are reasonable versions of who's voting. There's a large amount of conservative Christian polticians, because there's a large amount of conservative Christians voting for them. Politicians don't care about half the population because half the population doesn't care about them.
A well-educated, interested, active public is probably currently the enemy of people in office, because they'd know enough to vote them out.
---
Re:Unfortunately, the Judiciary trumps your arguem (Score:2)
Fortunately, the Supreme Court may actually be moving towards enforcing Constitutional limits, as shown by the striking down of the Violence Against Women Act. Government lawyers made the ridiculous argument that violence against women should be a federal crime because it indirectly affects interstate commerce. Of course using that reasoning, everything indirectly affects everything else, so the federal government can regulate absolutely anything...hmm, very convenient. Fortunately the SC shot them down, but only by a 5-4 margin. Which means if Gore gets to appoint any justices then any hope of constitutionally limited government is gone.
Re:Unfortunately, the Judiciary trumps your arguem (Score:2)
Regarding abortion, the "strict constructionist" position is simply that the Constitution gives no power to the federal government to either legalize or prohibit abortion; thus it should be a state matter. Abortion could never be outlawed at the federal level by any means short of a constitutional amendment, a process in which the President and Supreme Court have no authority. I personally believe abortion should be legal, but I recognize that Roe v. Wade was a blatant overreach of judicial power.
Re:How to make it known? (Score:2)
//rdj
Re:How to make it known? (Score:2)
//rdj
Political office (Score:2)
I have been thinking that I would like to run for some type of political office someday, but my question is basically, what political office out there will pay me the same as I am getting paid now? Without taking bribes mind you.
I think this is a pertinent reason why many techies dont try to run at all. It costs money just to run, then you dont get paid jack. I bet a lot of the professionals here get paid as much if not more than the president, and thier job is much easier than that role. I know I for one wouldn't be able to keep a straight face during those mideast peace talks, I think its all a joke.
If anybody has any insight on useful offices to run for that either pay a decent amount or let me keep my current job, then please inform me.
If you don't vote you shouldn't bitch. (Score:2)
Democracy is an active process, if you sit around passively nothing will change.
You can't get anymore passive then not voting,
Altering voting systems (Score:2)
There was an example of this effect on one episode of Gilligan's Island (of all places): The castaways were voting on who to make the leader and second-in-command of the island. Everybody voted for themselves as leader, but for second-in-command everybody voted for Gilligan.
This of course begs the question of whether we want a Gilligan running things.
However, compared to the current crop....
s/No Fear/No Brains/g
Re:It doesn't matter if we vote. That is the point (Score:2)
They are NOT identical. If you think they are, you just haven't been looking.
AMEN! Wedged government is good government (Score:2)
The fact that I am a 44-year-old who will be needing Social Security just as it is expected to run dry (and thus I want the national debt to be as small as possible, so it will be feasible to borrow money to handle the downhill side of the boomers) has nothing to do with my wanting this, of course.
Reason's not to care. (Score:2)
converting non-voters is a priority (Score:2)
why do you think there are so many campaigns right now to get people to come out and vote, especially among the younger crowds?
there's Rock the Vote from MTV, the Presidential Smackdown from WWF, Pearl Jam's encouragment to vote, as well as tons of other programs trying to get higher participation.
And hell, the candidates themselves, especially the democrats want more people voting because they fear that the republicans are able to get their voters out to the booths easier than the democrats. Right now it's the christian coalition against the unions, the soccer moms vs the rich elitists, etc... but both candidates realize that by bringing up new issues they might be able to get more people to vote for them.
don't feed us the bullshit that nobody cares about those that haven't voted because they do. Hell, walking around NYC two weeks ago there were TONS of people with the forms you needed to fill out to vote. ENCOURAGING people to vote.
Re:Why I'm voting Nader (Score:2)
http://www.thepu lse 2000.com/interactive/keystate/html/brand.htm [thepulse2000.com]
-----
None of the Above (Score:2)
Failing to vote because it doesn't have any effect is rational. I wouldn't vote if politics wasn't my hobby (I hang out with both the libertarians and the republicans on campus).
Failing to vote as a political statement is idiotic. All politicians see is the results of the election. You don't vote, you don't matter. "Oh, we can make our disagreement known in other ways" say the non voters. No, you can't. Honestly, no one pays attention to those who don't vote.
Saying, "I don't vote because there aren't any good options" is bullshit. You aren't voting because you don't want to take the time to figure out how you should vote, and go to the ballot box and vote that way. It's a defensible position, but defend that position, not this bullshit "I'm making a statement by not voting" position. You aren't. Qui tacit consentit.
I see no point in voting ... (Score:2)
I see no point in voting because technology has this amazing ability to make the inefficient irrelevant. You see it everywhere in regards to the internet. Middlemen in every industry are feeling their belts tighten due to the 'net. Why do I need to pay some guy a commission to enter a stock trade, when I can interact directly? The internet has changed most of the old rules. Brand recognition is almost meaningless, since the cost to try a new brand is usually infinitesmal. Competition is a click or a few keystrokes away.
This is why we hear the RIAA scream and whine. When it comes right down to it, they're just middlemen. Glorified distributors that are quickly becoming very irrelevant. If you stop and think about it for a moment, all they really do is make deals to get artists' music to the stores where it's purchased by the consumer. Those fine retail establishments are actually just middlemen as well, and as such, tend to get along with other middlemen. But I digress.
This government was built apon the notion that the laws that govern us should be what the majority seems necessary. But due to the crude forms of communication available at the time (by today's standards), there was really no way to design the government to be truly democratic, and directly refelct the desires of the people. And so, in a vastly over-simplified description, a system of representation was devised. This worked like a big pyramid, with people who represented groups of people, and people who represented other representives, and so on, and so forth. Until you get an aggregate of the peoples will, and what should be a good approximation of their interests.
But now, we really don't have that communication barrier. Obviously it still exists, but it's deterioration is proceeding exponentially, and will eventually be gone. And when it's gone, we'll eventually see the inefficiency of "representitives", and they will become irrelevant. This will be a good time, when we can actually experience a more pure version of democracy. Imagine for a moment that companies didn't lobby politicians to forward their interests. Imagine that money being spent to educate the public on issues they find important, since the power is directly in the public's hands.
Imagine a government where each citizen could vote on every trivial obscure technicality they so chose. Imagine companies actually trying to create educated consumers, instead of mindless drones with credit. It's Utopian, its fuzzy tree-hugging crap, but there's no need to feel ashamed daydreaming about how great it would be. It's going to happen. There's no avoiding it. the government can't stop it. Simple.
Which is why I don't vote. It's just my way of chuckling and saying, "Hey, I really don't give a damn what you guys do, it won't mean squat in a decade or two, so enjoy it while it lasts."
Re:Katz (Score:2)
Katz is a humongous public-money-sponsored AI project. Katz-bot works by scanning the news media looking for random sentences which seem to be on the same subject. The algorithm tends to give preference to statements made by the lunatic fringe over mainstream discourse. It then picks these sentences and arranges them together along with a whole bunch of other garbage to create a compelling illusion that the last paragraph can somehow be inferred from the previous paragraphs.
The aim of the Katz project is to elicit the most extreme reactions possible - mainly from people who know it's wrong but can't say how and from kids who believe it to be the gospel truth.
Uhm, make a difference? (Score:2)
Let's do some quick math: say that there are half a Million accounts here on
How many people are living in each state nowadays? I know that in the Va Beach/Hampton roads/Richmond area alone, there are 1 MILLION (Pinky to mouth) people. 500 is a drop in the bucket.
Just wanted to point out the futility.
Rami
--
Re:Competency (Score:2)
Rami
--
Re:Tilting at Windmills (Score:2)
And it's too bad that because of all this nonsense going on here in the middle east,the US embassy here in Israel is shutdown and my citizenship will not likely get finished before the elections. Which is a real pity because I would very much like to exercise my right (well, not yet anyways) to vote.
That my vote would be completely wasted is another point completely. I would vote because it would be my right, nay, my mandatory service to the country. It's the only say that I have, and if I don't use it, it's the same as if I never had it.
And what is a government that doesn't allow it's people to have a say in it?
--
Rami
Re:Not voting... (Score:2)
Re:It's really all pointless (Score:2)
The President is NOT the end-all/be-all of "power" in the US. In fact, s/he may always be the most tied up of any figure. Congress wields a good deal of influence over your life, true, but Congress is a different beast altogeter, as those people are people you might actually know.
Then, even more important is your state government. And then, even more so, the local gov't. Those of you who might scold me, remember these two things. Cities and towns can prevent businesses from moving in (and possibly even revoke corporate charters), and they can enact their own minimum wage laws (Santa Cruz, anyone?)
The power of the people is local, not vested in two Corporate Clones...
Re:Abstinence makes the biparties grow stronger... (Score:2)
Perhaps November will be more meaningful if large numbers of Americans deliberately choose not to participate in this election, and make their reasons known, rather than shrugging and ignoring it. Perhaps then, the Beltway might really buckle a bit.
And you think that voters staying away in droves will somehow differentiate itself from business as usual in what way?
Perhaps you didn't bother to read what you quoted. The difference here is that not only would people be staying away, but they'd have an effective manner of communicating why they stayed away.
Much of the advantage to politicians is the opportunity to blame low voter turnout on apathy or bland acceptance. If there were some way for the non-voters to communicate their reasons, that advantage disappears. If it is known that a significant portion of the electorate chose not to vote due to an extreme dislike of both candidates, for instance, or in protest of the corporate nature of the campaigns, then the politicians can no longer effectively claim the "will of the people" due to a less-than-50% turnout. And the media would love it.
Of course, like most ideals I don't expect it to happen. But it would be nice.
Katz (Score:2)
Personally, I find Katz's articles interesting and thought-provoking (even if I disagree with a part/all of the article).
A few minor points (Score:2)
Not voting can be as distinctly a political statement as voting.
To quote a post in a previous political article;
If you don't have the intelligence to realize that failing to vote is the stupidest form of protest ever, then please don't vote. -- Jason Earl
Nobody cares if you don't vote. If non-voters mattered they would be counted in the Gallop Polls. If you don't vote the only message you are going to send is that your opinion doesn't matter, and believe me, the political machine will hear you loud and clear.
Democracy can be much more than our current incarnation of it.
That's true, and the beauty of our political system is that we can change it. All we have to do is participate and convince enough people that our way is better. How exactly do you propose to change the system without participating in it?
The people who run politics and media have succeeded in trivializing non-voters, making them appear repugnant and irresponsible, the opposite of moral and idealistic.
Wrong, the non-voters have trivialized themselves. Stupidity should be repugnant. Responsible people, by definition, do things. Voting is doing something; not voting is doing nothing, and therefore irresponsible. If you don't like the way things are, do something about it. Participate. Vote. The easiest way to change any system is from the inside. If you aren't going to do anything then shut the hell up. You've already decided, by default, that your opinion doesn't matter to you, why should it matter to me?
People would truly count if their political system offered them real choices and options, and gave them genuine ways to participate -- if their views were actually heard.
I've got news for you, our political system is Open Source. There are plenty of genuine ways to participate, whether it's sticking a sign in your yard or manning a phone bank, organizing a benefit or rally for the candidate or cause of your choice, or even running for office yourself if you can't find someone else you can support. Just like any other open source project, the direction is determined by the people who do things. Just ask yourself this: "What would happen if everyone who felt like I do voted?"
This may explain why so many people feel it's pointless to vote. A majority of Americans, for example, have repeatedly supported abortion rights, yet their popular will is continually challenged.
A majority of Americans choose not to vote, and so their popular will continues to mean nothing. Words without action are meaningless.
What's clear is that the two major candidates manipulate a handful of issues -- abortion, the environment and the judiciary come to mind -- to promote the idea that they have substantial differences when, in fact, they have few.
Actually there is only one difference between the two major parties: Wellfare for individuals Vs. wellfare for corporations. Of course, the Green Party adds wellfare for trees to the list, Libertarians say "fuck everybody who isn't me" and Pat Buchanon says "fuck everybody who isn't a white male protestant bigot". Who says there aren't choices?
The rest isn't worth responding to since you apparently have already decided not to vote. As I said before; why should your opinion matter to me when it obviously doesn't matter to you?
I used to know a woman who had writen in "Mickey Mouse" in 15 consecutive presidential elections. If you choose not to vote those two words repeated 15 times will have more meaning than everything you have ever writen or said on the subject combined.
Re:Curious (Score:2)
I think it's fair to say that governments exist in this sense: people in a group tend to behave in a particular patterned, predictable way. I absolutely, 100% agree with you that governments do not exist in the sense that theists think God exists: as an entity which is intangible and inaccessible, yet "real" in the sense that any hunk of physical matter is "real" (incedentally, I think theists are generally full of crap). It occurs to me, now, actually, that the religion-metaphor works pretty well. A lot of people believe that "government", in the sense that you and I don't believe in it, exists, and that belief perpetuates the pattern of behavior which I refer to as "government", which I believe exists in a meaningful way. In just the same way, people believe that "God" exists, and this belief perpetuates the existance of "religion", which is just another pattern of human behavior. So I guess the real confusion comes from using the word "government" to refer to two distinctly different things. Ah, philosophy is fun, fun, fun.
So maybe you think this is a useless definition of "government". That's fine, but I suggest you at consider this view of government, and think about what views it leads to, since you seem to find this type of inquiry genuinely interesting, and thinking about things a different way never hurts, even if you don't agree with it. Particularly, if you think about government this way, it's hard to make the case that governments have special rights to do certain things which people don't have otherwise. Of course, questions about just what "rights" are, and what rights people have, are ludicrously difficult, and I'm tired, so I'm not even going to try to go into it here.
So, now I'm convinced that you actually know what you're talking about, and aren't just insane. That makes you much less fun to argue with :) I guess we could still argue about whether the fact that "god-gov't" doesn't exist is a good reason to not participate in the system which does exist (which is, I think, how this discussion got started). Unless you live on a mountain, by yourself, (which I assume you don't, unless you're a hermit with a net connection) you have to deal with the behavior of the people around you.
I disagree TOTALLY (Score:2)
But despite advocating small parties, if I was an American living in a swing state I'd still vote Gore just to hope it might stop Bush.
Re:Heinlein may have been onto something... (Score:3)
Spoken like the true advocate of class warfare that I now know you are.
The "powerful/rich" do not necessarily profit at the expense of the "weak/poor," dispite what John Keynes might have thought.
This line of thinking stems from the idea that economics is a zero-sum game, which any Econ 101 student can tell you is clearly false. There need be no loser for there to be a winner. The sum total of wealth in the world is not a static value.
Wealth and prosperity can indeed be created. To believe otherwise is to suggest that the sum total of wealth in the world today is the same as it was in the middle ages, or in pre-historic times; a viewpoint that can hardly be supported.
Perhaps you've never heard the expression "A rising tide lifts all boats..." There is no question that "the poor" in the United States today are far better off today than they were 30/40/50 years ago. Today's poor, for the most part, have a place to live, are rarely starving, have access to television, and telephones, and transportation. Most are employed.
The rich/poor conflict is a Red Herring. The wealthy invest their wealth, as a means of preserving or expanding it. This creates new businesses opportunities, new technologies, and new jobs.
Who do you think takes those new jobs? Certainly not the rich. The working class fills those new jobs, leaving vacancies that must be filled by others.
This kind of prosperity cannot be obtained through government. The government does not create jobs. The government need only stay out of the way, and allow the conditions which permit this kind of expansion to exist. The rest takes care of itself.
People are motivated by a rational self-interest. "What is best for me, and for those I care about?" The answer to that question, "what is best," is rarely government. The War on Poverty has been a dismal failure. With every dollar spent on social programs, why has the membership at or below "the poverty level" not diminished? Because every wealth redistribution plan concieved takes money out of the hands of they can and do make a beneficial contribution to society in the form of economic opportunity, and places it into the hands of those that can't.
Government exists to uphold and defend the rights of the citizenry. Every other task which is undertaken by government is doomed to failure, and would be better served by others.
Re:Not voting... (Score:3)
It is more than a little irritating to listen to people whine about my choice to not vote. I am a grown man who is able to look at the world and make my own decisions -- I don't need this "Oh, but you've just got to vote!" thrown at me.
The fact is, people don't vote for a variety of reasons, some of which are quite compelling. I don't believe in the system. How would my taking an active role in the system (i.e. by voting) be consistent with my beliefs? Regardless of what they taught you in school, you don't have to believe in the system. I am not protesting anything. It's just that I would no more go and vote for a fictional entity like a government than I would go to the North Pole to hang out with Santa Claus.
Steve
Re:Do you know anything about U.S. government? (Score:3)
Remind me...*what* are we trying to protect against these days? Hell, Republicans and Democrats *already* can't get anything done. It's not like having a third party president would change that. You're right, the U.S. system of government is not broken. It was specifically set up to resist the will of the populace for the sake of "stability". I don't see this as a good thing anymore.
Re:Politics is not elitist. (Score:3)
But even so, if the system is not "broken", then why do we have things like the winner-takes all electoral college (I believe in every state but one...perhaps it's California). That seems directly against citizen representation. Why do we have two major candidates that are telling us that voting for a third party is "wasting our vote"? If they were such public servants shouldn't they be glad to have people participating in a vibrant democracy? If the system is not broken why are people made to feel that their voice doesn't count? If the system really isn't broken, then why would we have a CPD controlled by the Democrat/Republican duopoly, barring third party candidates from the debates, limiting exposure to the public?
You're right - people should become active in politics. This includes allowing people hold heterogenous opinions without being marginalized.
Re:Why not Libertarian? (Score:3)
No, that's in reference to what a particular Libertarian tried to convince me of one time. He felt that anyone has a perfect right to take shots at anyone else -- until they hit them. You see, you have the right to do anything you want until it infringes on someone else's rights, and the infringement didn't start until the bullet hit.
There are inconsistencies in libertarian philosophy and disagreements among libertarians as to what constitutes an infringement of another's rights. Most (all?) libertarians don't want some freak neighbor shooting a howitzer at us any more than you do.
In his book Th e Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism [best.com] , Economist and anarchist David D. Friedman does an excellent job of explaining the problems with libertarianism [best.com], and in fact directly addresses your gun-firing-neighbor question. (Make sure also to see the following chapters, 42 [best.com] and ) [best.com]
--
It's really all pointless (Score:3)
I'm not voting. I can't, as a matter of conscience, participate in such a charade. Even voting for Nader/Browne/Buchannan/Haeglin is out of the question (and where's the SP-USA this year?)
My main grief with politics this year is how amazingly selfish everyone is. "Well, we need to vote so that we get to keep gun/abortion/speech/hacking/music/sexual/gender rights the way we want them!" It doesn't matter who it is, everyone has only one thing they care about. How can one of two (or ten) men or women hope to represent the views of 300 million Americans? (I am, of course, rounding up). You can put whoever you want in office, and the net result is going to be the same - a small group of people slowly turning the screws on the rest of us.
Politics is not elitist. (Score:3)
I am writing this as a creature of politics. I have been interested in politics since I was a kid discussing it at the dinner table with my parents. I read about politics everyday. I watch The Capitol Gang, McLaughlin, Meet the Press, etc for enjoyment. I majored in political science in college. Heck, I even have a political campaign sign in my front yard this year.
From reading your epistle, I have come to believe that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the American political process. Politics 101 teaches us that "government" is formed when the whole of the citizenry gives up a few rights in order to benefit the whole.
In the States, we have a representative democracy, in which we elect representatives to protect our interests for us. (The Founding Fathers believed that the individual citizen would not have have enough time to govern and that the process would become unwieldy, so they chose to use representatives to work in the actual machinations of governance). As I and many others have commented before, the system isn't perfect, especially since we have moved away from the original model and have devolved to a place where we expect representatives to follow their own agendas and not ours.
But please remember that in "the system", "the process" or whatever you want to call it, was designed for CITIZEN INPUT, we are supposed to be involved in politics on days other than Election Day. For example, I personally believe that voter apathy results not from a "broken system" but from the fact that our kids aren't being taught about the civic duty of being involved in politics. We don't teach it in schools and it certainly isn't being taught by most parents. We have come to think of politics as dirty, and as fodder for late night comedians.
Politics is not an elitist endeavor. Politics is not only national concern, but state and local. Politics is honorable. Political involvement by every citizen is critical for a democracy to survive. So to answer your charge that the coporate republic is running both political parties, the reason is frustratingly simple, because there's a vacuum of power, and someone has to fill it. That's why.
Is the two party system broken? I don't necessarily believe so. Does anyone remember the '92 election? I do. I was excited. I went to a political rally, had a campaign sign in my dorm room. I was excited to vote. Although this year is different for me and alot of others (I was more excited about voting in the primaries than I am about the general election). This year's election seems to be more about personalities than about issues, with a certain flawed but politically brilliant figure in the background.
But Jon, I have to say before I end this, I believe in the process and I know that I will be in the booth on election day with my toddler by my side.
Re:Don't vote unless you've thought about it (Score:3)
Re:Politics is not elitist. (Score:3)
Stage N+1 of the decline and fall of a modern society: Those that control public opinion, such as the propaganda, err, enertainment (ugh) industry pay off the politicians and placate the people.
Stage N+2 of the decline and fall of a modern society: Society is restructured with those who control public opinion (the TV) at the centerpiece. Propogation of "enertainment" values becomes vital to most people.
At this point, the society bears little resemblance to what it was before, so the original society can be said to be dead. These stages do overlap, and we're already partway down stages N+1 and N+2.
Same as always? Probably not. (Score:3)
BUT:
-Has voter turnout always been so low?
-Have campaigns always been so pre-fab and lifeless? (the accounts of the early conventions and debates in Walter Kronkite's autobiography are highly recommended)
-Has mass-marketting always been so influential?
-Have elections always had so many people who are voting AGAINST a candidate, rather than for one?
-Have large corporations always held this degree of control over politics and legislation? (I don't think examples are necessary in this crowd)
-Has the mass-media always played such an influential role?
Sure there have always been problems with our democracy, but to pretend things today are just the same as they always have been is to completely miss the real lesson of history. Things are always changing. The world is not static. Nothing is as it always was. Politics is continually evolving, and not necessarily in ways that are good.
Our government is steadily becoming less and less representative of the people. Fewer people vote each election, because they don't feel their vote makes a difference. And by and large they are right. I don't think that's the way it was in Washington's day.
Is Ralph Nader the answer? No. I'm rather more inclined to think Ralph Nader is an asshole, but that's beside the point. You need not be a zealous pseudo-radical to think that something is wrong with our government today.
Re:Heinlein may have been onto something... (Score:4)
As opposed to now?
People that opted out of Federal service weren't persecuted in any way. They owned businesses, held jobs, and were otherwise free to pursue their own endeavors, just like everybody else.
You don't actually think that your vote, in today's political system, is relevant, do you?
Ok admit it how likely do you really think that this would be to actually happen in the US?
Obviously, this is not a change that could be enacted via the legislative process. You'd be hard pressed to find a politician who would make such a proposal, which would need to be a Constitutional amedment by it's nature; further, very few members of the voting masses would support a measure which ensured that it would be the last vote they ever cast.
That's not the point of the discussion.
There are basic liberties that should come without cost. The preservation of one's life, the ability to live without threat, the ability to have some modicum of food, water, shelter, etc. Also since politics are so important voting is in there as well.
There are basic liberties that should come without cost, but the ones you mention have little to do with them.
Liberty was described by John Stuart Mill as "the soul's right to breathe." Jefferson advocated "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," which is a more elegant way of saying Life, Liberty, and Property.
You, as a human being, should be entitled to manage your affairs as you see fit, to seek the betterment of your own condition, and that of your family. It ends there.
You are not entitled to Food, Water, or Shelter. You speak as though the procurement of these things comes without cost. Someone has to harvest that food... Someone has to purify, and bottle that water... And someone has to buy the materials, and provide the labor used in building that shelter. There are few things in life that come without cost, regardless of what the socialist utopians may have told you.
You have no right to demand the means of preservation from the rest of us, just as we have no right to demand sustainance from you.
Herein lies the problem of the unrestricted voting franchise; a problem the Romans found out about. No society can survive for long once the public learns that it can vote itself entitlements from the public coffers.
Look at the state of the nation, and tell me where the Entitlement seekers are leading the rest of us.
One man, one vote and why you feel disenfanchised. (Score:4)
Consider the following situation. You have three voters(A B and C) and three candidates (X, Y and Z). A ranks the candidates XYZ, B ranks them YZX and C ranks them ZXY. The Borda system correctly says that in terms of preference, this is a tie.
The problem is that the very idea of preference is nearly meaningless in this situation. The following table shows this.
+____________________+
|___|rank|X>Y|Y>Z|Z>X|
|_A_|XYZ_|_Y_|_Y_|_N_|
|_B_|YZX_|_N_|_Y_|_Y_|
|_C_|ZXY_|_Y_|_N_|_Y_|
+____________________+
Table 1. Voter preferences
(I apologize for the table formatting -- slashcode doesn't accept table tags).
What does this tell us? That if you ask if X>Y, 2/3 will say yes; if you ask if Y > Z, 2/3 will say yes, and if you ask whether Z > X, 2/3 will say yes. What this is is a proof by counter-example that the relationship of public preference is not transitive. Therefore our intuitions about preference which we use when we think of our own, singular personal preferences do not apply to group preferences. I believe that any system which tries to pick out the most preferred candidate, no matter how subtle, is bound to have non-intuitive bugs because lacking the transitivity of the individual opinion, group opinion on this matter is a mathematically and logically different animal. The Borda system is better than plurality voting, because it takes into account second tier preferences, but adding up nonparametric statistics should give any mathematically inclined person a queasy feeling.
In particular, if the situation above is extrapolated to a larger number of voters, it is clear that any preference based system is going to sometimes yield a result that the majority did not want. This is part of the reason why people feel disenfranchised, because the voting system we use is seriously buggy. More of the reason is discussed below.
Messing around with the details of a system that attempts to come up with the "most preferred" candidate means that the specific situations in which a bug emerges will differ. This may be of great practical import, but is not ideal.
Now lets consider the same election, but ask instead the question of whether the candidate can do the job.
+____________________+
|___|rank|_X_|_Y_|_Z_|
|_A_|XYZ_|_Y_|_Y_|_Y_|
| B |YZX_|_N_|_Y_|_Y_|
| C |ZXY_|_N_|_N_|_Y_|
|sum|____|_1_|_2_|_3_|
+____________________+
Table 2. Suitable Candidates
In this case, voter A thinks they're all more or less OK. Voter B and voter C agree that under no circumstances should X get the job. Voter C also thinks that voter B's favorite (Y) is almost as bad as X. So, if you phrase the question differently, it is clear that we don't really have anything like a tie when it comes to voter esteem. Everyone agrees Z is a good candidate, whereas The majority of people think that X, who was tied in the Borda system with Z, is unacceptable.
The approval based voting system corresponds to the last line in table 2. In practical terms you would go into the voting booth and check off every candidate you were willing to live with. The approval system will not produce counterintuitive results, because it is not based on a mathemtical fallacy -- rankings of candidates by breadth of approval is transitive and thus not abiguous.
Furthermore, it corresponds to a basic political principle outlined in our Declaration of Independence, which is that governments rule by the consent of the governed. The approval voting system measure which candidate has the widest consent.
The final issue is that, literally speaking, approval voting is not "one man, one vote". Let's dispense with that right away. "One man one vote" is a very simplistic slogan, which assumes plurality voting as the only possible system. What is really being aimed at is equality of all citizens. Under approval voting, everyone gets the same number of votes, but may choose to withhold them. Furthermore, approval voting goes far to equalizing political power. Political power can be mathematically measured by the number of winning coalitions you can join; share of political power is that number divided by the total number of coalitions.
Under plurality voting, Nader supporters are effectively disenfranchised, since they must vote against their preferences to join a winning coaltion -- they have a power of zero. The "Reagan Democrats" however have a power of two -- they can join Gore or Bush. You can see this in action when you see how much attention is paid to Nader's issues (practically none). Why? because people who care about Nader's issues have a slice of the power pie equal to zero. They can vote, but unless they are willing to join the Gore coalition, their vote is meaningless (at least in the practical sense of influencing the outcome of the election).
Ironically, switching to a system based on getting the widest possible approval would reduce the need to pander to the middle, since you could build a winning coaltion out of a minority of the middle and several minority groups. The media's job would get harder though. Candidates would no longer be obliged to put themselves on the artificial and simplistic left/right spectrum, but could form coalitions out of many different groups whose view of things may be orthagonal to the great organizing principle of liberal/conservative.
I think this would make campaigns more substantive and civil too -- tactics of splitting or polarizing the electorate would be ineffective.
Why I'm voting Nader (Score:4)
My mom told me not to throw away my vote on Nader, and that even if I don't like Gore, I should fear Bush more. I thought about it, and decided on a compromise, which I will impart to Slashdot: If you're not in a swing state (look on the net, you'll find a listing), vote for Nader. If you are in a swing state, trade your vote:
Find someone in a non-swing state who is rational, but pro-Gore. Tell them that you will vote Gore if they vote Nader. They will, of course, accept this, since a vote in a swing state is actually worth something. It's also good for Nader, since all he cares about is the popular vote. Be careful who you pick. This is a classic example of The Prisoner's Dilemma [everything2.com]. If you pick someone who is rational, and who knows that you are rational, then you'll be OK - see Metamagical Themas, by Douglas Hofstadter for the reasoning.
ObOnTopic: Why woud Gore appoint people who would be any more anti-IP than Bush? He's owned by the entertainment industry.
Abstinence makes the biparties grow stronger... (Score:4)
And you think that voters staying away in droves will somehow differentiate itself from business as usual in what way? First, the candidates themselves want low voter turnout. Low turnout means less chances for the wild cards. If only the party faithful turn out, no real changes will happen.
Personally, I think the best thing that can happen is that power is fragmented more ways. I live in Minnesota, where the Independant Jesse Ventura controls the executive branch, the Republicans control the senate, and the Democrats control the house. For me, it's perfect. Getting three distinct groups to align is even harder than getting two groups to agree, which means less gets done. In my book, the fewer laws that get passed mean the least amount of damage done.
I personally think the power split we have in the US today is responsible for our country's current political "success story". The executive Democrat at the top prevents the legislative Republicans from implementing their absurd policies, and the Republican congress refuses to support the Democratic president's absurd policies. Nothing gets done, the status quo remains, and the world has a nice, safe, predictable environment to exploit.
Toss in a Green president, give us a Democratic Senate and a Republican House, and Washington will be in for another four-year bowel blockage, while the rest of us continue to prosper.
John
Re:Don't vote unless you've thought about it (Score:4)
How about having an 'abstain' option on your vote card? That way we could truly gauge just how pathetic our candidates are instead of assuming that everyone was lazy. This would also resolve the problem with fining people who won't vote.
There is nothing wrong with not picking - just make sure you let everyone know why, otherwise you will not have done anything for the process.
Not voting... (Score:5)
Wrong, Mr. Katz. Not voting is nothing more than a big "I don't care." The only message it sends is that you approve of ANY candidate, and that you approve of them all equally. Why? Because ANY OTHER VIEW can be expressed by voting. If you prefer one of them, you vote for them. If you don't like any, you write-in another name, or just don't select any of them - because going to the polls and not picking one still counts as voting.
Not voting only means that you don't want to put any input into the process.
If you plan on not voting to "protest" the system, then you're going about it all wrong. You're not protesting anything. Protesting something means going out and being active about it, not opting-out. Sitting at home on voting day will accomplish nothing but to perpetuate the system. Don't believe me? What happens if only one person were to go and vote? All those other people lose their voice in the matter, and that one person gets to decide all by themselves. And if it happens again the next time, who are the candidates going to care about? The one person who determines who gets the job, or the rest of the population that has shown they're not going to be bothered to vote? Of course, that one person.
Next time you're with a group of friends, and they're deciding where to go eat/what to do, try just not participating in the process, see if it does anything useful. It won't.
So people, stop saying not voting is USEFUL for anything!
---
Do you know anything about U.S. government? (Score:5)
Why, you ask? Simple: stability. Aside from the Civil War crisis, the U.S. has always has a pretty stable and functional government. That's not due to heavy bureaucracy, but our well known system of checks and balances. The whole idea is to prevent the damaging effects of foolish blind radicalism by keeping a system which does not deviate from the status quo.
And as for the interest groups and two party system, perhaps you should read James Madison's Federalist 10. In it, he gives a good explaination about factions, but ultimately decrees that people inherently tend to band together in groups and that varying groups nearly balance each other's influence. We're trying to prevent tyranny of the majority, here folks, (or in the psuedo radical Slashdot zealot's mind, tyranny of a tiny minority). And besides, even if the Britney Spears of presidential candidates, Ralph Nader, were to be elected... what could he accomplish? You think a radical Green president could get any of his idealistic proposals through a Congress made up almost exclusively of Republicans and Democrats? Dubious at best. Sorry to break it to you folks, but the U.S. system of government is not broken at all: it was intended to keep radicals like you and Nader far far away from office.
Vote libertarian. You can own a piece of park. (Score:5)
They say that "the buyer would own something so beautiful and pristine, that they would have no incentive to damage/ruin/commercialize it".
That brilliant analysis, in a nutshell, is the reason no person should ever vote for a libertarian.