Voting on voting

[Sambient]

[Jimbo]

Beware the dark suits.

[pcqgod]

Abstain.

[wilson]

Voting is largely useless due to two things:

1) the general prevailing paradigm
2) human stupidity

Some seem to think that voting, ie democracy, is the greatest thing. If that's so, then why is the world still so utterly fucked up, as much as in developing countries as in so-called developed countries?

[the masked man]

B

[wilson]

Here's a tiny story for you about voting.

Huge shift in the wind 100 days ago when Spain voted in the PP, the Tories as it were.

Election promises included:

No tax rise
No amnesty for fiscal fraudsters
No making it cheaper for the boss to fire you.

All these promises vehemently and vociferously championed in the pre-election campaign.

Well guess what, voters?

Less than 100 days in power and they've not only broken all three, they've positively exploded them. And they look quite smug about it.

Voting is pointless. It only sets up bulwarks around the lies.

[Snarfyguy]

It can seem futile, but that's what they want you to think.

When you cede power, even what little power your puny vote appears to amount to, some other entity appropriates it, and believe me, that entity is far more nefarious than the buffoons you didn't vote for.

Imagine, in some incongruous scenario where nobody voted - in protest - what sort of thing would step in to fill that void. People have died for you right to vote. Just because the candidates are lame is no excuse not to exercise that right. Write in Donald Duck or something if you want to voice your dissatisfaction with the candidates.

I don't mean to be didactic, but it's really a privilege to have this right.

[Diamond Dog]

Here's a tiny story for you about voting.

Huge shift in the wind 100 days ago when Spain voted in the PP, the Tories as it were.

Election promises included:

No tax rise
No amnesty for fiscal fraudsters
No making it cheaper for the boss to fire you.

All these promises vehemently and vociferously championed in the pre-election campaign.

Well guess what, voters?

Less than 100 days in power and they've not only broken all three, they've positively exploded them. And they look quite smug about it.

Voting is pointless. It only sets up bulwarks around the lies.

Says the Canadian, living in Spain.

[the hanging monkey]

Voting is largely useless due to two things:

1) the general prevailing paradigm
2) human stupidity

Some seem to think that voting, ie democracy, is the greatest thing. If that's so, then why is the world still so utterly fucked up, as much as in developing countries as in so-called developed countries?

This.

When parties say one thing in their campaign and do the opposite when in power (hello Lib Dems) it renders the entire enterprise utterly pointless.

[Diamond Dog]

Voting is largely useless due to two things:

1) the general prevailing paradigm
2) human stupidity

Some seem to think that voting, ie democracy, is the greatest thing. If that's so, then why is the world still so utterly fucked up, as much as in developing countries as in so-called developed countries?

This.

When parties say one thing in their campaign and do the opposite when in power (hello Lib Dems) it renders the entire enterprise utterly pointless.

But the Lib Dems crime is even greater, in that they falsely chose to use the votes they were given to secure power for a party that were pretty much diametrically opposed to their own agenda. That's heinous. No one voted for a coalition and, whatsmore, had the LIb Dems said they were happy to support a coalition - something they absolutely claimed they would not throughout the campaign- then people wouldn't have voted for them, in the numbers they did.

The only good thing about this coalition is that it will obliterate the Lib Dems at the next election.

[Limpin' Jez McKenzie]

It can seem futile, but that's what they want you to think.

When you cede power, even what little power your puny vote appears to amount to, some other entity appropriates it, and believe me, that entity is far more nefarious than the buffoons you didn't vote for.

Imagine, in some incongruous scenario where nobody voted - in protest - what sort of thing would step in to fill that void. People have died for you right to vote. Just because the candidates are lame is no excuse not to exercise that right. Write in Donald Duck or something if you want to voice your dissatisfaction with the candidates.

I don't mean to be didactic, but it's really a privilege to have this right.

More or less. I think the real point is that it may not be perfect, but voting is a decent system. You should add your voice, however little it may be heard.

The problems tend to arise from the counting systems. For example,the UK's counting system is (in my view) flawed as it allows a party with a minority of total votes, conceviably even a very significant minority, to dominate the executive and the legislature.

The US system is marginally better, because of the separate polls for the executive and the legislature - but only marginally, because the electoral college system means that one can become president with less than half the popular vote.

There will always be flaws in counting systems too, so one has to make the best of it.

Breaking manifesto pledges is slightly different. Manifesto pledges come in all shapes and sizes, some material, some not. It would be interesting if breaking a "material" manifesto pledge required a general election. In theory the Queen could do this in the UK - order a general election if she thought the party in power had lied their way in. However these days she is unlikely to do this, and there is always the problem that general elections are actually quite expensive.

[the hanging monkey]

Breaking manifesto pledges is slightly different. Manifesto pledges come in all shapes and sizes, some material, some not. It would be interesting if breaking a "material" manifesto pledge required a general election. In theory the Queen could do this in the UK - order a general election if she thought the party in power had lied their way in. However these days she is unlikely to do this, and there is always the problem that general elections are actually quite expensive.

What the Lib Dems did should be actionable, let alone triggering another election.

[Limpin' Jez McKenzie]

Breaking manifesto pledges is slightly different. Manifesto pledges come in all shapes and sizes, some material, some not. It would be interesting if breaking a "material" manifesto pledge required a general election. In theory the Queen could do this in the UK - order a general election if she thought the party in power had lied their way in. However these days she is unlikely to do this, and there is always the problem that general elections are actually quite expensive.

What the Lib Dems did should be actionable, let alone triggering another election.

I was surprised they got into bed with the Tories.

[Belle Lettre]

I wasn't.

[wilson]

It can seem futile, but that's what they want you to think.

When you cede power, even what little power your puny vote appears to amount to, some other entity appropriates it, and believe me, that entity is far more nefarious than the buffoons you didn't vote for.

Imagine, in some incongruous scenario where nobody voted - in protest - what sort of thing would step in to fill that void. People have died for you right to vote. Just because the candidates are lame is no excuse not to exercise that right. Write in Donald Duck or something if you want to voice your dissatisfaction with the candidates.

I don't mean to be didactic, but it's really a privilege to have this right.

I understand perfectly what you are saying, so may I just clarify.

There have been times, and hopefully still will be, where voting has been a good thing if not great. And yes, in that case, a privilege. But as any democracy advances, the meaning and power of voting inversely decline. Take the recent Spanish elections: coming to power on the backs of lies the size of whales. Take Obama: came to power on the backs of lies the size of whales. In the first instance, this wasn't really a surprise, but Obama fooled a lot of people, myself included. So then what does voting mean? If the voter is conditioned to wave flags and to always vote the same party and always cheer the same corruption, or, he or she can be made to change his or her vote simply for the only other major party (most advanced democracies only have two viable parties, some have three: certainly not much more in any case than a dictatorship), then I submit that at this advanced stage voting has indeed become meaningless.

You mention the void that would appear should no one vote. I, for one, would be curious to see something like that happen if just once.

Imagine none of the lying nincompoops was voted for: who would run the country?

I dare say it couldn't be much worse than actually voting these chumps into power!

[Limpin' Jez McKenzie]

Take Obama: came to power on the backs of lies the size of whales.

There was some analysis recently - I posted a link to it a couple of weeks back - that said Obama had made more promises than any other presidential candidate (ever), but also had kept more of them than any president ever.

[Limpin' Jez McKenzie]

You mention the void that would appear should no one vote. I, for one, would be curious to see something like that happen if just once.

Imagine none of the lying nincompoops was voted for: who would run the country?

I dare say it couldn't be much worse than actually voting these chumps into power!

It would either still be the same people, because they are the activists, or the army.