4 ms·

All of the world's leading nations today are strong democracies (not the fastest growing like china, but the really developed ones). I wouldn't write off the po

All of the world's leading nations today are strong democracies (not the fastest growing like china, but the really developed ones). I wouldn't write off the possibility that these nations are great because they have good democracies. Indeed, the fact that the vote is close actually validates the candidates as capable. Do you mean that we already know the outcome, so why bother? Eh, in that case, maybe it would be wise to allow email voting for everyone. Surely that's would rule out the "why bother" factor cause it's not much of a bother.

yummyfajitas 14y ago
All of the world's leading nations are also capitalistic. The counterfactual is not communist and crony-driven unstable dictatorships (e.g., China, Venezuela, Iraq), but non-democracies with policies similar to Democracies, or democracies with stolen elections. (This group would include nations such as South Korea, which were weakly democratic until relatively recently, Singapore, and various others.) Do you mean that we already know the outcome, so why bother? No, I mean that if the election is split 50/50 (+1 on either side), then the "wisdom of crowds" suggests the difference between Obama and Romney is irrelevant. So why waste time pushing the election one way or the other?
- zerostar07 14y ago
  Hmm, I'm not sure norwegians or swedes or germans (or canadians) would agree their states are capitalist. Free-market sure, but not dependent on heavy capitalism. Interestingly, the Spiegel blames "total capitalism" for the "destruction" of america: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/commentary-total-capitalism-and-the-downfall-of-america-a-865437.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/commentary-total-c... Anyway, i don't undestand why your voting has to be "the one vote that mattered". I see it like a gamble, you trust your vote on someone, even if you will be disappointed later. If you don't you lose your chance to be disappointed (and possibly learn a lesson)
- pfedor 14y ago
  But have you considered that maybe (at least some of) the first-world countries are capitalistic precisely because they're democracies? For example Poland (where I'm from) was socialist until it became a democracy in 1989 and immediately afterwards it became a free market economy, because you know, people weren't stupid.

yummyfajitas 14y ago

All of the world's leading nations are also capitalistic. The counterfactual is not communist and crony-driven unstable dictatorships (e.g., China, Venezuela, Iraq), but non-democracies with policies similar to Democracies, or democracies with stolen elections. (This group would include nations such as South Korea, which were weakly democratic until relatively recently, Singapore, and various others.) Do you mean that we already know the outcome, so why bother? No, I mean that if the election is split 50/50 (+1 on either side), then the "wisdom of crowds" suggests the difference between Obama and Romney is irrelevant. So why waste time pushing the election one way or the other?

zerostar07 14y ago
Hmm, I'm not sure norwegians or swedes or germans (or canadians) would agree their states are capitalist. Free-market sure, but not dependent on heavy capitalism. Interestingly, the Spiegel blames "total capitalism" for the "destruction" of america: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/commentary-total-capitalism-and-the-downfall-of-america-a-865437.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/commentary-total-c... Anyway, i don't undestand why your voting has to be "the one vote that mattered". I see it like a gamble, you trust your vote on someone, even if you will be disappointed later. If you don't you lose your chance to be disappointed (and possibly learn a lesson)
pfedor 14y ago
But have you considered that maybe (at least some of) the first-world countries are capitalistic precisely because they're democracies? For example Poland (where I'm from) was socialist until it became a democracy in 1989 and immediately afterwards it became a free market economy, because you know, people weren't stupid.