Have this damnable thought ever slipped through your mind that...

ThomasT

If that's the intent, then it wouldn't make much sense for advocates of it to claim that as the intent. Would it? I'm not sure what the intent is, but the net effect would seem to be the disenfranchisement of a certain number of legitimately eligible voters.

ThomasT

That's one view. Maybe it's correct. The solution, imho, is to vote for candidates other than Republicans and Democrats. Maybe those votes will count for something.

wuliheron

I beg to differ. Since OWS began screaming rape at the top of their lungs there's been a huge turnaround with 60% of the country now believing the government should create policies to redistribute the wealth, 1/3 of OWS now supporting the Tea Party and vice versa, republican presidential candidates calling each other greedy pigs, and now Obama pushing for corporate tax reform. When your vote just doesn't count for much yelling rape at the top of your lungs can and historically has gotten results.

Hobin

This has little to do with what my reaction to your previous post. You stated that a direct democracy is actually one of the worst kinds of government. If we also assume that you believe the above (losing individual liberty in favor of the whole), then you are mistaken in that belief. Direct democracy, while it has many flaws and even though I prefer a more indirect form of government, is actually not very restrictive. Compared to most other kinds of government, 50+% approval before passing a law is incredibly high. In other words, in the worst case scenario (the rest of the population under total suppression) at least 50+% have enormous individual liberty.

Also, you might want to rethink your rather extreme stance of finding nothing more abhorrent than the suppression of the individual in favor of the whole. Murder is illegal for exactly this 'favor of the whole'-reason. Individual freedom is extremely important, I very much agree, but there certainly are (and should be!) limits to this freedom.

eggshell

the majority of people are retarded, i don't trust them to have such a large role in determining the policies of the nation i live in, which is why i favor an indirect form of representation.

your last part of the post shows that you didn't comprehend mine, i mentioned a republic -- i'm not going to explain to you the implications of this and its effect on the freedom of individuals.

ThomasT

With what?

wuliheron

I beg to differ that the solution is to vote for a third party. If people want a third party they would already be voting for a third party and in the US at least we have a two party system that discourages third parties.

Most people I know have some pretty weird ideas about what a democracy is. A lynch mob, for example, is not a democracy. Majority rule is not a democracy. The ancient Athenian motto they would shout before speaking to the voters was, "Strike if you must, but hear me first!" Lynch mobs don't bother to listen if they don't want to.

No, what makes a democracy are specific rights given people and minorities to ensure the peace. The right to vote is just one of those and the right to protest is another. When your vote becomes more or less meaningless for whatever reason its time to start protesting. When the majority or a minority starts dumping on you big time and you can't stop them, its time to start protesting. Otherwise they might actually start to think you like it.

Just a thought.

Galteeth

You are referring to a "liberal democracy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_of_democracy

wuliheron

No, I'm referring to democracy in general:

"Democracy is an egalitarian form of government in which all the citizens of a nation together determine public policy, the laws and the actions of their state, requiring that all citizens (meeting certain qualifications) have an equal opportunity to express their opinion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

If don't have the right to express your opinion voting is irrelevant.

Galteeth

Well, that's not literally true.

wuliheron

So now you want to debate with the encyclopedia? Go for it dude. They have their own bulletin board and I'm sure they'll get a laugh out of the idea that you can have a democracy where people are not allowed to express themselves.

ThomasT

I think that if the ~80M people who don't bother to vote (assuming that a majority of them don't vote because they think their vote won't matter) voted for candidates other than Republicans and Democrats, then maybe some positive changes regarding the way government and politics and the financial sector and corporate America works might happen.

If they continue to not vote and just do a protest or a blog once in a while, then I don't think that's likely to bring about any changes in the status quo.

Not voting would seem to be an expression of not wanting or caring about any significant changes in the status quo.

Anyway, wrt the OP, I think we can say for sure that votes that aren't made definitely don't count.

Hobin

This is obviously not true, and explains quite a lot.

wuliheron

LOL, just because they don't vote doesn't mean they care about the results much less that they are unhappy with them or would vote for a third party. All it means is they don't vote for whatever reason. Some are even amoral anarchists who abstain from voting because they don't believe in voting! And, of course, the group that votes the least are the youngest, while those who vote the most are the oldest and that's the way it has always been. Even in countries where voting is compulsory turnout is only about 7-16% higher for national elections suggesting your third party fantasy is about as likely as a snowball in hell even if everyone did turnout.

Char. Limit

Half the world has below average intelligence, though.

Hobin

*chuckles* There you do have a point.

edward

I started thinking about that when I noticed what The History Channel and the Discovery Channel had morphed into.