4 ms·

What if you disagree with the system of giving everyone a vote being a valid way to decide things?

• xentronium 16y ago
  Go and build your own country. With blackjack! And hookers!
  • thestoicattack 16y ago
    In fact, forget the country!
  • devmonk 16y ago
    Sounds like Nevada.
• epo 16y ago
  Because, like it or not, that is the system and you can only change the system from within. "I disagree with the system" is intellectually lazy and in my experience merely a cover story for apathy.
  • mkr-hn 16y ago
    How will voting change the system if the system doesn't produce a candidate who can or will change it?
    • epo 16y ago
      Lack of imagination is another symptom of apathy. Doing nothing will not change the system, but it will perpetuate it.
      • mkr-hn 16y ago
        How will voting change the system if no candidate is willing to change it? And just to be clear, I didn't say I'm not voting or that I think the system is broken. I'm asking you to explain your position.
        • epo 16y ago
          Change requires willingness to change, and action. If no candidate is willing or able to change the system then you are indeed stuck with it. Another view is that perhaps no one wants to change the system because it is, all things considered, better than the alternatives.
        • jasonlotito 16y ago
          > How will voting change the system if no candidate is willing to change it? You make the assumption enough people want to change it. They don't. At least, not yet. Candidates aren't some otherworldly beast, they are citizens. If people really wanted to enact change, they could. You can't make a change alone. If enough people want to make the change, they can vote to make it happen. It's a really simple concept.
          • mkr-hn 16y ago
            I'm not making that assumption. I think most people are fine with the system. The only thing we're lacking in is voter education (both fundamentally and on issues). Fix that, and the system works perfectly. The populace is so poorly educated that researching candidates and issues is an enormous strain on them, and most people can't make themselves do it. Asking someone who got a poor education to read through a bill or look through a voting record is asking a lot.
            • jasonlotito 16y ago
              > I'm not making that assumption. Yes, you are (at least for the question), here: > How will voting change the system if no candidate is willing to change it? You have to make the assumption that people are willing to make the change for that question to be valid, otherwise, it reads like thsi: "How will voting change the system if no candidate is willing to change it and voters aren't willing to change it?" So yes, you do assume, for the question, that the voters want change. And if the majority of voters want that change, it can be made to happen. They simply vote for it.
              • 16y ago
  • axod 16y ago
    I guess you could move to another country, or you could try and overthrow the government and change popular opinion, but that's a pretty big ask. The vast majority of people believe that one person per vote is 'fair'. Probably because it's simple for them to understand, and they've been taught that everyone should be 'equal'. So if you disagree with that premise (That one person per vote is fair), what should you do? throw your useless vote in the box with all the people who voted because they like the candidates hair? FWIW I vote anyway since it's the lesser of 2 evils.
    • robryan 16y ago
      It's not so much the people you describe voting for candidates for reasons as silly as their hair, it's the candidates attempting to appeal to these people which I feel is the biggest issue. In the recent Australian election by election day each party had summarized there policies/ attacks into a few dot points which they had talked about over and over again hoping I guess to impart at least a few dot points on people before they vote.
• mbreese 16y ago
  What's the alternative? I can't think of one that is morally acceptable.
  • axod 16y ago
    Personally I would prefer a monarchy, or some merit based voting system - eg You get a vote if you can demonstrate you have the understanding to make informed decisions.
    • ugh 16y ago
      Monarchy?! Sure, you might be lucky and get a good monarch – but their son could be a total douchebag (like Wilhelm II, the gaffe-emperor who led Germany into World War I). I think that on the whole, elections are less random and more merit based than monarchies.
      • michaelkeenan 16y ago
        But when monarchies work, they work so well! The richest (per capita) country in the world, Liechtenstein, is a monarchy. I think Qatar, also a monarchy, is second-richest, though that doesn't really count because it has so much oil.
      • axod 16y ago
        The difference isn't that great really though. If you look at the dynasties that win elections in the US - Bush, Kennedy, etc They may as well be a monarchy. Democracy typically only gives you 2 choices, and if they are both from dynastial families, it's pretty much a monarchy with the illusion of democracy anyway. > "Monarchy?! Sure, you might be lucky and get a good monarch – but their son could be a total douchebag (like Wilhelm II, the gaffe-emperor who led Germany into World War I)." Sounds like Bush Sr and Bush Jr to me,
        • ugh 16y ago
          You know what we should do? Determine officials by lot! That’s an age-old democratic instrument first (and only, I guess) employed by the ancient Athenians [+]. Now that I think of it, randomness actually lives on with the jury duty. [+] As always with ancient democratic Athens several caveats apply, e.g. you had to be rather rich to be eligible for that.