4 ms·

That only matters if voting actually functions as the root cause of election victory, but in practice it is merely an illusion of choice. Party leaders and infl

That only matters if voting actually functions as the root cause of election victory, but in practice it is merely an illusion of choice. Party leaders and influencers control the election field, ensuring they get to choose a controlling share of legislature membership. Voting may be a proximal cause of election victory, but it is the ability to choose most of the people who get to even run that actually matters. In a two-party system, there are two flavors of propaganda and people can choose which political machine they want picking the candidates. In a one-party system like we've seen with the great Socialist states of the 20th century or with American party primaries, leadership control over elections is even more blatant. In the American system, for example, the existence of third party or non-Machine candidates acts as a pressure valve that ensures no real change can happen, since the major parties can divvy up the successful rhetoric and defuse it with their own loyal candidates, while anyone else who gets elected will be in too small a number to form an effective legislative caucus. The result of individual elections isn't important. What matters is how the system functions in aggregate.

lisper 8y ago
No. The course of history changed radically as the result of the last presidential election in the U.S., and it will change radically again depending on the outcome of the midterms. Things are very different now than they would have been if Hillary Clinton had won, and if the Democrats take the House, things will go very differently than if they fail to do so.
- philipov 8y ago
  Yes, things will be very different. We get to choose between corporate feudalism and outright fascism. Great choices we have there. One is obviously worse than the other, but neither are for the benefit of the American people. The polarizing antagonism between our political parties is a symbiotic relationship that keeps either one from having to own the consequences as both continue to feed off their common host. The party that gets elected determines which group of ultra-rich interests gets preferential treatment in looting the economy.
  - lisper 8y ago
    That's because the advocates of corporate feudalism and fascism are out there working to promote their agendas, while the advocates of alternatives are wasting time whining on HN about the poor menu of choices instead of getting out there to fight for better choices. Good choices do not get handed to you on a silver platter any more than anything else in life. That doesn't change the fact that in a democracy, if enough people get together and FUCKING VOTE instead of sitting at home gazing at their navels and feeling sorry for themselves, they can change the world. BTW, love him or hate him, Donald Trump is the poster child for democracy in action. He did not get to be president because some shadowy Powers That Be decided to make him president. He got to be president because he convinced tens of millions of people to FUCKING VOTE for him.
    - philipov 8y ago
      Who says I'm not fighting for better choices? Voting just doesn't happen to be very effective at doing that if you don't first make sure there are good candidates to vote for. Telling people to just vote is as good as believing in the power of markets to solve all ills; neither are a magic bullet. Getting people to understand that problem is part of the fight. If you would like to support a good candidate, you should consider donating to Ross Barkan for NY State Senate: http://rossbarkan.com/ http://rossbarkan.com/
      - lisper 8y ago
        > Who says I'm not fighting for better choices? You certainly left me with that impression when you wrote, "We get to choose between corporate feudalism and outright fascism. Great choices we have there." > Ross Barkan ... is a Democrat. So now you're asking me to donate to a corporate feudalist? (BTW, if you want to respond to that, I suggest you look up my donation record in the FEC database before you do.)
        philipov 8y ago
        Ross Barkan is running as a Democrat, but he is not a Machine candidate; he is an independent who needs to edge out the person preferred by party leadership [so that he can take on the Republican incumbent without splitting the vote]. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is a corporatist through and through. Suppose we had Elizabeth Warren as a candidate instead? Bernie Sanders is also a Democrat, but look at the kind of games party leadership played against him to make sure their preferred candidate got the nomination. Don't pretend you don't understand the difference between running under a party and being part of party leadership. I happen to have a productized campaign contributions and expenditures database at my fingertips, so maybe I'll take you up on the offer to check. What state are you in? EDIT: Your donations are probably to candidates in California, and we don't have that normalized and loaded yet.
GW150914 8y ago
I remember these same empty arguments back in 2000, and you know what? There was a difference! It’s hard to imagine Al Gore invading Iraq, and even if that is the single concrete difference between him and Bush, that’s still a whole region that wouldn’t have been destabilized, ISIS wouldn’t exist, etc. Don’t confuse being unhappy with the choices on offer as there being no real choice. That one election has consequences still being felt today all around the world.

lisper 8y ago

No. The course of history changed radically as the result of the last presidential election in the U.S., and it will change radically again depending on the outcome of the midterms. Things are very different now than they would have been if Hillary Clinton had won, and if the Democrats take the House, things will go very differently than if they fail to do so.

philipov 8y ago
Yes, things will be very different. We get to choose between corporate feudalism and outright fascism. Great choices we have there. One is obviously worse than the other, but neither are for the benefit of the American people. The polarizing antagonism between our political parties is a symbiotic relationship that keeps either one from having to own the consequences as both continue to feed off their common host. The party that gets elected determines which group of ultra-rich interests gets preferential treatment in looting the economy.
- lisper 8y ago
  That's because the advocates of corporate feudalism and fascism are out there working to promote their agendas, while the advocates of alternatives are wasting time whining on HN about the poor menu of choices instead of getting out there to fight for better choices. Good choices do not get handed to you on a silver platter any more than anything else in life. That doesn't change the fact that in a democracy, if enough people get together and FUCKING VOTE instead of sitting at home gazing at their navels and feeling sorry for themselves, they can change the world. BTW, love him or hate him, Donald Trump is the poster child for democracy in action. He did not get to be president because some shadowy Powers That Be decided to make him president. He got to be president because he convinced tens of millions of people to FUCKING VOTE for him.
  - philipov 8y ago
    Who says I'm not fighting for better choices? Voting just doesn't happen to be very effective at doing that if you don't first make sure there are good candidates to vote for. Telling people to just vote is as good as believing in the power of markets to solve all ills; neither are a magic bullet. Getting people to understand that problem is part of the fight. If you would like to support a good candidate, you should consider donating to Ross Barkan for NY State Senate: http://rossbarkan.com/ http://rossbarkan.com/
    - lisper 8y ago
      > Who says I'm not fighting for better choices? You certainly left me with that impression when you wrote, "We get to choose between corporate feudalism and outright fascism. Great choices we have there." > Ross Barkan ... is a Democrat. So now you're asking me to donate to a corporate feudalist? (BTW, if you want to respond to that, I suggest you look up my donation record in the FEC database before you do.)
      - philipov 8y ago
        Ross Barkan is running as a Democrat, but he is not a Machine candidate; he is an independent who needs to edge out the person preferred by party leadership [so that he can take on the Republican incumbent without splitting the vote]. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is a corporatist through and through. Suppose we had Elizabeth Warren as a candidate instead? Bernie Sanders is also a Democrat, but look at the kind of games party leadership played against him to make sure their preferred candidate got the nomination. Don't pretend you don't understand the difference between running under a party and being part of party leadership. I happen to have a productized campaign contributions and expenditures database at my fingertips, so maybe I'll take you up on the offer to check. What state are you in? EDIT: Your donations are probably to candidates in California, and we don't have that normalized and loaded yet.

GW150914 8y ago

I remember these same empty arguments back in 2000, and you know what? There was a difference! It’s hard to imagine Al Gore invading Iraq, and even if that is the single concrete difference between him and Bush, that’s still a whole region that wouldn’t have been destabilized, ISIS wouldn’t exist, etc. Don’t confuse being unhappy with the choices on offer as there being no real choice. That one election has consequences still being felt today all around the world.