6 ms·

It's a classic statist tactic: make voting a civil duty and shame people who don't vote, then when that person expresses dissatisfaction you can respond "You ha

It's a classic statist tactic: make voting a civil duty and shame people who don't vote, then when that person expresses dissatisfaction you can respond "You had your say when you voted, so stop complaining!" You can't win either way. If you don't participate then you're not allowed to be discontent and vice versa.

meric 11y ago
People voted for hope and change when they voted for Obama. They got more debt, more wars, more Guantanamo Bay, more electronic surveillance. Obama is more Bush than Bush can hope to be. The people had their say. They got the candidate they wanted. And the candidate broke every promise...
- sanderjd 11y ago
  It's possible that Obama cynically said one thing to get elected while planning to do another thing once in charge, but it's also possible that he did his utmost to bring change to politics and make good on peoples' hope, and simply failed; that he tried to do the job people wanted him to do, but the job was impossible. I think it's probably a lot of both.
- cloakandswagger 11y ago
  Although I didn't support him, I think Obama had good intentions and wasn't lying to get elected. His failure to accomplish what he promised is an indicator of just how strong the "shadow government" (comprised of the military, our surveillance agencies, corporate interests) is in the US.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Although I didn't support him, I think Obama had good intentions and wasn't lying to get elected. His failure to accomplish what he promised is an indicator of just how strong the "shadow government" (comprised of the military, our surveillance agencies, corporate interests) is in the US. Actually, most of it is an indicator of just how strong the other, coequal branches of the overt, Constitutional government are (particularly Congress, but the Supreme Court has a role, too.) The President is not (even before considering the influence of any "shadow government") a dictator, and most significant policy changes require Congressional action, or at least acquiescence.
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      The President is not a dictator, but the United States does subscribe to the unitary executive theory (especially as of the past few decades) in a way no other country of similar organization really does, to the best of my knowledge. Then there's the observation that a lot of voters certainly seem to want the President to be a dictator. Eras are routinely defined by presidential decisions, and Presidents are blamed for just about any political failure (though not necessarily always credited for successes).
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > The President is not a dictator, but the United States does subscribe to the unitary executive theory (especially as of the past few decades) in a way no other country of similar organization really does, to the best of my knowledge. The unitary executive theory is a theory about the structure of power within the executive branch (not the scope of executive branch power) under the US Constitution, so its not even a theory which applies to any other country, nor is it relevant to the relative balance of power between the executie and other branches (except insofar as strong versions of it restrict the legislatives branches ability to create final authority other than President elsewhere in the executive branch, but that's rarely relevant, one way or the other, to the President's ability to keep substantive campaign promises.) > Then there's the observation that a lot of voters certainly seem to want the President to be a dictator The things you point to to support this seem more like people acting like the President actually has the power of a dictator than actually wanting the President to be a dictator. (And, in the case of defining eras, seems more like "Presidents are convenient simple symbols" than anything having to do with dictatorships; this is more related to the ceremonial chief of state role than the substantive head of government role, the US system just happens to unite them in one person rather than having a separate King/President for the first and Prime Minister/Chancellor for the second.)
- c0nducktr 11y ago
  >And the candidate broke every promise... Hardly. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ru...
  - p4wnc6 11y ago
    The thing I hate about the truth-o-meter stuff (either promises kept or broken) is that so much of it is still subjective and a matter of degrees and opinions. If Obama (just as an example) promised to "implement" some program or tax reform, what exactly does that mean? Someone could feel like Obama kept that promise so long as he put forward (that is, lobbies for the introduction of) a bill about it, even if it was defeated. Others might feel he broke that promise even if he put forward a bill, and the bill was passed and signed into law, because they would say that the extent of the bill should not (in their opinion) count as "implementing" something -- e.g. it doesn't go far enough in their desired direction in order to justify even calling it an "implementation." None of this stuff is spelled out in specifics before election night and put up for bid on something like a prediction market. Failing that, I think we can only really say he "kept" or "broke" promises whenever there is a super clear, unambiguously understood outcome that can be indisputably verified and doesn't rely on anyone's interpretation of degrees. This also doesn't address the further fact that many people find some of promises to be really insignificant next to other ones, and so they might do an importance-weighted sum of kept promises instead of just an equal-weighted sum. The total number of kept promises may not matter to them much if two or three major promises are believed to be broken.
- cust0m 11y ago
  Every administrator of a state is not there to represents who elected them but the ruling class.
- eip 11y ago
  The primary reason why the individual citizens of a country create a political structure is a subconscious wish or desire to perpetuate their own dependency relationship of childhood. Simply put, they want a human god to eliminate all risk from their life, pat them on the head, kiss their bruises, put a chicken on every dinner table, clothe their bodies, tuck them into bed at night, and tell them that everything will be alright when they wake up in the morning. This public demand is incredible, so the human god, the politician, meets incredibility with incredibility by promising the world and delivering nothing. So who is the bigger liar? the public? or the "godfather"? This public behavior is surrender born of fear, laziness, and expediency. It is the basis of the welfare state as a strategic weapon, useful against a disgusting public. http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/sw4qw/index.shtml#twentyfour http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/sw4qw/index.shtml#twentyfour
  - RobertoG 11y ago
    Uau, Freud meet Ayn Rand. Darwing is missing somewhere there. I would argue that the reason we create "political structures" is because we are social hierarchical primates. We evolved for living in small groups where "the boss" was easily removed if he abused too much of its power. Then the neolithic and the industrial revolution arrived and now we don't know how to deal we societies of millions of people. That doesn't mean we can't learn how to do it. Maybe modern governs can be though as just another technology.
joesmo 11y ago
I think those who consciously abstain from voting are the ones who have the biggest right to complain about a system that by design can no longer be changed. But the stupidity of the idea you mention, that you're not allowed to participate or complain if you don't vote, permeates US culture. It assumes that voting itself is some sort of great good, in and of itself, and ignores the fact that especially in the US, most votes simply don't count. It ignores the fact that even with the votes that do count, the representatives do not carry out the will of the people. It simply ignores the fact that a republic cannot represent the will of the people, that it devolves into a high school popularity contest, and that people are frustrated exactly because of this state, the absolute failure of the idea of a representative democracy (at least in the US). At least the people who choose not to vote can stand up and be proud that they didn't partake in the rigged theatre that passes for a republic's elections. They can be proud that they didn't waste time, resources, and money trying to vote and encourage people to vote for someone who would not carry out the will of the people, time, resources, and money that could have been better spent on actual solutions rather than promoting the illusion of a people's will. Pretending that elections matter and that by electing the right person, the people's will will be done is mere fantasy and wasting time promoting it is indeed a drain to society. So, yes, for the weak-minded idiots, if you don't vote, you're not allowed to complain. For the people that can think, not voting is the only act of power one has left in this high school popularity contest named politics (at least in the US).

meric 11y ago

People voted for hope and change when they voted for Obama. They got more debt, more wars, more Guantanamo Bay, more electronic surveillance. Obama is more Bush than Bush can hope to be. The people had their say. They got the candidate they wanted. And the candidate broke every promise...

sanderjd 11y ago
It's possible that Obama cynically said one thing to get elected while planning to do another thing once in charge, but it's also possible that he did his utmost to bring change to politics and make good on peoples' hope, and simply failed; that he tried to do the job people wanted him to do, but the job was impossible. I think it's probably a lot of both.
cloakandswagger 11y ago
Although I didn't support him, I think Obama had good intentions and wasn't lying to get elected. His failure to accomplish what he promised is an indicator of just how strong the "shadow government" (comprised of the military, our surveillance agencies, corporate interests) is in the US.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Although I didn't support him, I think Obama had good intentions and wasn't lying to get elected. His failure to accomplish what he promised is an indicator of just how strong the "shadow government" (comprised of the military, our surveillance agencies, corporate interests) is in the US. Actually, most of it is an indicator of just how strong the other, coequal branches of the overt, Constitutional government are (particularly Congress, but the Supreme Court has a role, too.) The President is not (even before considering the influence of any "shadow government") a dictator, and most significant policy changes require Congressional action, or at least acquiescence.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    The President is not a dictator, but the United States does subscribe to the unitary executive theory (especially as of the past few decades) in a way no other country of similar organization really does, to the best of my knowledge. Then there's the observation that a lot of voters certainly seem to want the President to be a dictator. Eras are routinely defined by presidential decisions, and Presidents are blamed for just about any political failure (though not necessarily always credited for successes).
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > The President is not a dictator, but the United States does subscribe to the unitary executive theory (especially as of the past few decades) in a way no other country of similar organization really does, to the best of my knowledge. The unitary executive theory is a theory about the structure of power within the executive branch (not the scope of executive branch power) under the US Constitution, so its not even a theory which applies to any other country, nor is it relevant to the relative balance of power between the executie and other branches (except insofar as strong versions of it restrict the legislatives branches ability to create final authority other than President elsewhere in the executive branch, but that's rarely relevant, one way or the other, to the President's ability to keep substantive campaign promises.) > Then there's the observation that a lot of voters certainly seem to want the President to be a dictator The things you point to to support this seem more like people acting like the President actually has the power of a dictator than actually wanting the President to be a dictator. (And, in the case of defining eras, seems more like "Presidents are convenient simple symbols" than anything having to do with dictatorships; this is more related to the ceremonial chief of state role than the substantive head of government role, the US system just happens to unite them in one person rather than having a separate King/President for the first and Prime Minister/Chancellor for the second.)
c0nducktr 11y ago
>And the candidate broke every promise... Hardly. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ru...
- p4wnc6 11y ago
  The thing I hate about the truth-o-meter stuff (either promises kept or broken) is that so much of it is still subjective and a matter of degrees and opinions. If Obama (just as an example) promised to "implement" some program or tax reform, what exactly does that mean? Someone could feel like Obama kept that promise so long as he put forward (that is, lobbies for the introduction of) a bill about it, even if it was defeated. Others might feel he broke that promise even if he put forward a bill, and the bill was passed and signed into law, because they would say that the extent of the bill should not (in their opinion) count as "implementing" something -- e.g. it doesn't go far enough in their desired direction in order to justify even calling it an "implementation." None of this stuff is spelled out in specifics before election night and put up for bid on something like a prediction market. Failing that, I think we can only really say he "kept" or "broke" promises whenever there is a super clear, unambiguously understood outcome that can be indisputably verified and doesn't rely on anyone's interpretation of degrees. This also doesn't address the further fact that many people find some of promises to be really insignificant next to other ones, and so they might do an importance-weighted sum of kept promises instead of just an equal-weighted sum. The total number of kept promises may not matter to them much if two or three major promises are believed to be broken.
cust0m 11y ago
Every administrator of a state is not there to represents who elected them but the ruling class.
eip 11y ago
The primary reason why the individual citizens of a country create a political structure is a subconscious wish or desire to perpetuate their own dependency relationship of childhood. Simply put, they want a human god to eliminate all risk from their life, pat them on the head, kiss their bruises, put a chicken on every dinner table, clothe their bodies, tuck them into bed at night, and tell them that everything will be alright when they wake up in the morning. This public demand is incredible, so the human god, the politician, meets incredibility with incredibility by promising the world and delivering nothing. So who is the bigger liar? the public? or the "godfather"? This public behavior is surrender born of fear, laziness, and expediency. It is the basis of the welfare state as a strategic weapon, useful against a disgusting public. http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/sw4qw/index.shtml#twentyfour http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/sw4qw/index.shtml#twentyfour
- RobertoG 11y ago
  Uau, Freud meet Ayn Rand. Darwing is missing somewhere there. I would argue that the reason we create "political structures" is because we are social hierarchical primates. We evolved for living in small groups where "the boss" was easily removed if he abused too much of its power. Then the neolithic and the industrial revolution arrived and now we don't know how to deal we societies of millions of people. That doesn't mean we can't learn how to do it. Maybe modern governs can be though as just another technology.

joesmo 11y ago

I think those who consciously abstain from voting are the ones who have the biggest right to complain about a system that by design can no longer be changed. But the stupidity of the idea you mention, that you're not allowed to participate or complain if you don't vote, permeates US culture. It assumes that voting itself is some sort of great good, in and of itself, and ignores the fact that especially in the US, most votes simply don't count. It ignores the fact that even with the votes that do count, the representatives do not carry out the will of the people. It simply ignores the fact that a republic cannot represent the will of the people, that it devolves into a high school popularity contest, and that people are frustrated exactly because of this state, the absolute failure of the idea of a representative democracy (at least in the US). At least the people who choose not to vote can stand up and be proud that they didn't partake in the rigged theatre that passes for a republic's elections. They can be proud that they didn't waste time, resources, and money trying to vote and encourage people to vote for someone who would not carry out the will of the people, time, resources, and money that could have been better spent on actual solutions rather than promoting the illusion of a people's will. Pretending that elections matter and that by electing the right person, the people's will will be done is mere fantasy and wasting time promoting it is indeed a drain to society. So, yes, for the weak-minded idiots, if you don't vote, you're not allowed to complain. For the people that can think, not voting is the only act of power one has left in this high school popularity contest named politics (at least in the US).