4 ms·

> Those in power want you not to vote No, those in power very much want you to vote. Voting is a great feel-good process that gives the illusion that the peop

by agwa 13y ago

> Those in power want you not to vote No, those in power very much want you to vote. Voting is a great feel-good process that gives the illusion that the people are sovereign when in reality we have practically no power and the government can do whatever the hell it wants as long as both parties agree on it. If this wasn't a democracy it would be quite clear where the power really lies, but since it is a democracy, this problem is obscured quite nicely. A thought-provoking thread from a few days about about this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5801276 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5801276

makmanalp 13y ago
You can have the best of both worlds: vote, but don't leave the democratic / political process alone after that for the remaining part of the year.
- baddox 13y ago
  Or don't vote, and take every opportunity to peacefully undermine the government by educating people, participating in alternate currencies and black markets, striving to be self-sufficient, etc.
  - bpatrianakos 13y ago
    I don't believe in this. It's not that it doesn't make sense it's that it seems like fighting a losing battle. To me it seems the only way to change things is from within. Trying to affect change the way you describe makes you the "other" and its easy for them to take steps to either make your life harder or shut you down completely. It's this same kind of mentality that I think makes the whole copyright issue a losing battle. The more you fight it the more everyone loses. The minute you win a battle they make the means by which you won it illegal or a tedious process.
    - baddox 13y ago
      Don't get me wrong, you're definitely fighting a losing battle. Even (especially!) those who have utilized violence for their supposedly revolutionary goals are fighting a losing battle, and I'm suggesting foregoing violence. But I completely disagree that the way to change things is from within. When has that ever actually worked? Sure, governments get overthrown from within, but that just results in another government (that may be better, but which also may be worse), and it doesn't change the attitude of the people toward the very concept of government, which in my opinion is the problem. Governments don't get smaller and more respecting of civil liberties. The United States is arguably the most valiant and educated attempt at creating a small and unobtrusive government, and in a very short period it has grown into arguably one of the largest governments ever to grace the Earth. I think the only hope for lasting change is for the attitude of society toward government to change, and I do think that education and counter-economics are the best ways to show people that the roles that are supposedly only accomplishable by government in fact don't require government at all. That said, the likelihood of any measurable change happening in my lifetime is low, but I suppose that's just part of the human condition.
popee 13y ago
Yeah, they want people to vote because then they can say: "will of majority". If only 1 person voted, the so called democracy would fail (people would eventually get it), because 1 person is not representing majority and majority is what democracy is all about (with all respect to minorities). They only made semantic switch saying that if you don't vote then you don't care -> not true because what if you are against (for example corrupted?) system and want real change -> should there be an voting choice: "this is not working, change the system"? :-)
Fixnum 13y ago
I was involved in marking a standardized test for high school students and one question involved inventing a story on an (unspecified) election. What shocked me the most, aside from the poor writing ability, the unintentionally unbelievable facts of the stories, and the surprising amount of confusion and internal contradiction within the students' responses, was that although remarkably few students demonstrated much awareness of politics or the political process, despite having taken a mandatory course on this subject, nearly all of the students regarded voting as a mystical or near-spiritual experience of civic involvement, social communion, and individual empowerment. Some students were probably 'sucking up'. But nearly every student?
- Datsundere 13y ago
  Isn't it because that's how they are taught to answer those type of questions by their ol government teachers?
bmelton 13y ago
Then beat them. Let them spend all the money they spend trying to get you to vote, then use that vote to cast a ballot for a third party candidate that best reflects your beliefs. Being able to get a substantial number of votes is a HUGELY BIG DEAL for third parties, as at some point (I can't remember the number exactly, I think it's 4%) they start getting federal funds to aid in future elections. A viable third party, or even better, a variety of parties would provide the electoral market place more competition, potentially stop all politicians from positioning themselves in the middle, and free politicians with real views from needing to pander to party lines.
- just2n 13y ago
  The problem is that FPTP mathematically guarantees a 2 party system in a steady state. So long as you own the 2 parties, you effectively own the government. What's worse is that it also actively works against additional parties. We also have a rampant issue of uninformed voting. I'd bet there are close to 50M people who just "vote with the party" and follow their biased news network rather than learning about the candidates and issues, then forming their own opinions.
  - mindcrime 13y ago
    I think you're overstating the situation there. My understanding is that FPTP tends to result in a 2 party system, but I have not heard it asserted that it guarantees such. And there are counter-examples listed on the Wikipedia page for Duverger's Law[1], so we know it doesn't always happen. It's also important to keep in mind what "two party system" really means. In the US, for example, it is not the case that every elected official belongs to one of two parties. There are both independent ("unaffiliated") office-holders (in what would be considered partisan positions) and 3rd party office-holders. The Libertarian Party, for example, usually claims approximately 600 elected officers nationwide (not all in partisan positions however) in average years. So, net-net, while FPTP is a bad system in many ways, one should not feel that there is no value in voting for 3rd party or unaffiliated candidates in such a system. Under some circumstances they do win, and in other cases they at least affect the outcome, which - in turn - affect the public discourse - and they may impact the Overton window as well. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
enriquepablo 13y ago
> Those in power want you not to vote Of course they want you to vote. Only they don't vote. They just prepay all politicians so that whichever of them wins the election is already in their payroll. Units of power are not people, are cents. When did this start?

by agwa 13y ago

makmanalp 13y ago

You can have the best of both worlds: vote, but don't leave the democratic / political process alone after that for the remaining part of the year.

baddox 13y ago
Or don't vote, and take every opportunity to peacefully undermine the government by educating people, participating in alternate currencies and black markets, striving to be self-sufficient, etc.
- bpatrianakos 13y ago
  I don't believe in this. It's not that it doesn't make sense it's that it seems like fighting a losing battle. To me it seems the only way to change things is from within. Trying to affect change the way you describe makes you the "other" and its easy for them to take steps to either make your life harder or shut you down completely. It's this same kind of mentality that I think makes the whole copyright issue a losing battle. The more you fight it the more everyone loses. The minute you win a battle they make the means by which you won it illegal or a tedious process.
  - baddox 13y ago
    Don't get me wrong, you're definitely fighting a losing battle. Even (especially!) those who have utilized violence for their supposedly revolutionary goals are fighting a losing battle, and I'm suggesting foregoing violence. But I completely disagree that the way to change things is from within. When has that ever actually worked? Sure, governments get overthrown from within, but that just results in another government (that may be better, but which also may be worse), and it doesn't change the attitude of the people toward the very concept of government, which in my opinion is the problem. Governments don't get smaller and more respecting of civil liberties. The United States is arguably the most valiant and educated attempt at creating a small and unobtrusive government, and in a very short period it has grown into arguably one of the largest governments ever to grace the Earth. I think the only hope for lasting change is for the attitude of society toward government to change, and I do think that education and counter-economics are the best ways to show people that the roles that are supposedly only accomplishable by government in fact don't require government at all. That said, the likelihood of any measurable change happening in my lifetime is low, but I suppose that's just part of the human condition.

popee 13y ago

Yeah, they want people to vote because then they can say: "will of majority". If only 1 person voted, the so called democracy would fail (people would eventually get it), because 1 person is not representing majority and majority is what democracy is all about (with all respect to minorities). They only made semantic switch saying that if you don't vote then you don't care -> not true because what if you are against (for example corrupted?) system and want real change -> should there be an voting choice: "this is not working, change the system"? :-)

Fixnum 13y ago

I was involved in marking a standardized test for high school students and one question involved inventing a story on an (unspecified) election. What shocked me the most, aside from the poor writing ability, the unintentionally unbelievable facts of the stories, and the surprising amount of confusion and internal contradiction within the students' responses, was that although remarkably few students demonstrated much awareness of politics or the political process, despite having taken a mandatory course on this subject, nearly all of the students regarded voting as a mystical or near-spiritual experience of civic involvement, social communion, and individual empowerment. Some students were probably 'sucking up'. But nearly every student?

Datsundere 13y ago
Isn't it because that's how they are taught to answer those type of questions by their ol government teachers?

bmelton 13y ago

Then beat them. Let them spend all the money they spend trying to get you to vote, then use that vote to cast a ballot for a third party candidate that best reflects your beliefs. Being able to get a substantial number of votes is a HUGELY BIG DEAL for third parties, as at some point (I can't remember the number exactly, I think it's 4%) they start getting federal funds to aid in future elections. A viable third party, or even better, a variety of parties would provide the electoral market place more competition, potentially stop all politicians from positioning themselves in the middle, and free politicians with real views from needing to pander to party lines.

just2n 13y ago
The problem is that FPTP mathematically guarantees a 2 party system in a steady state. So long as you own the 2 parties, you effectively own the government. What's worse is that it also actively works against additional parties. We also have a rampant issue of uninformed voting. I'd bet there are close to 50M people who just "vote with the party" and follow their biased news network rather than learning about the candidates and issues, then forming their own opinions.
- mindcrime 13y ago
  I think you're overstating the situation there. My understanding is that FPTP tends to result in a 2 party system, but I have not heard it asserted that it guarantees such. And there are counter-examples listed on the Wikipedia page for Duverger's Law[1], so we know it doesn't always happen. It's also important to keep in mind what "two party system" really means. In the US, for example, it is not the case that every elected official belongs to one of two parties. There are both independent ("unaffiliated") office-holders (in what would be considered partisan positions) and 3rd party office-holders. The Libertarian Party, for example, usually claims approximately 600 elected officers nationwide (not all in partisan positions however) in average years. So, net-net, while FPTP is a bad system in many ways, one should not feel that there is no value in voting for 3rd party or unaffiliated candidates in such a system. Under some circumstances they do win, and in other cases they at least affect the outcome, which - in turn - affect the public discourse - and they may impact the Overton window as well. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

enriquepablo 13y ago

> Those in power want you not to vote Of course they want you to vote. Only they don't vote. They just prepay all politicians so that whichever of them wins the election is already in their payroll. Units of power are not people, are cents. When did this start?