4 ms·

We -- all citizens of Western countries -- should seriously stop voting altogether. And I mean full stop. When the next election comes, nobody votes. That'll de

We -- all citizens of Western countries -- should seriously stop voting altogether. And I mean full stop. When the next election comes, nobody votes. That'll destabilize things right quick.

mr_spothawk 13y ago
I think it'd be too difficult to execute this plan.
Karunamon 13y ago
Not ever going to happen. All you've accomplished then is abdicated your vote to people who did. Would be more realistic to elect a third party, meaning someone who is not part of the corrupt R/D duopoly.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  More pragmatic would be to vote anti-incombant regardless of party until things change. Let the elected officials know that if they want a second term, they had better cooperate.
dwiel 13y ago
most people in the US already don't vote, and look what that has accomplished ...
ywyrd 13y ago
There is no "we", but I also disagree that it would "destabilize things". I think that after a brief initial upheaval, it would stabilize things to a great degree, and in a positive manner.
lukifer 13y ago
It is a curious quirk of psychology that a single vote for a two major parties is considered to matter, despite being guaranteed not to sway the outcome, while a vote for a third party is considered "wasted". And even curiouser, choosing not to vote at all is considered the more rational option. Here's hoping that the people eventually figure out that instant runoff can be implemented state-by-state.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  "Here's hoping that the people eventually figure out that instant runoff can be implemented state-by-state." I prefer approval, but hey, your state can have IRV and mine can have approval and thanks to the electoral college that doesn't break things! Unless we're in the same state, in which case we'll have to agree on something I guess.
  - lukifer 13y ago
    Unpack "approval" for me? Honestly, I'm in favor of any modifications to winner-take-all. "None of the Above" would be a major win for the protest vote, with a huge meta-electoral effect even if it never wins. And while it would boost morale and turnout for presidential years, the real effect would be seen if we elected Congress that way as well.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting Basically, you check yes or no for everyone, and the winner is the one with the most "yes" votes. Less expressive than IRV, but also simpler to understand and tabulate.
      - lukifer 13y ago
        Belatedly: thanks for sharing. It does seem an easier sell, because the counting process is so easy to understand. It's not as favorable to third parties as IRV, because "[X] Minor [X] Major" obviously doesn't carry as much weight as "[1] Minor [2] Major", but at least it still kills the spoiler effect. While IRV seems more "pure" in an information theory sense, Approval is elegant in its simplicity.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        That's mostly my views as well, yeah. There are a couple (narrow) weird cases with IRV, too... but IRV is unquestionably a tremendous improvement over FPTP.
noisy_boy 13y ago
Add a third option on the ballot for re-doing election with different candidates: "Dont like either of these two (expletive) - come back with better ones". If this option comes tops in the election, both parties pay a percentage towards the cost of next round. Can't say their donors would be very happy if this shit goes on for months. Oh my god, how will we function without a government? Well, its not like the government we chose is doing/gonna do all that better. Atleast it'll slowdown most of the shitty laws that get passed with alarming efficiency.

We -- all citizens of Western countries -- should seriously stop voting altogether. And I mean full stop. When the next election comes, nobody votes. That'll destabilize things right quick.

mr_spothawk 13y ago

I think it'd be too difficult to execute this plan.

Karunamon 13y ago

Not ever going to happen. All you've accomplished then is abdicated your vote to people who did. Would be more realistic to elect a third party, meaning someone who is not part of the corrupt R/D duopoly.

einhverfr 13y ago
More pragmatic would be to vote anti-incombant regardless of party until things change. Let the elected officials know that if they want a second term, they had better cooperate.

dwiel 13y ago

most people in the US already don't vote, and look what that has accomplished ...

ywyrd 13y ago

There is no "we", but I also disagree that it would "destabilize things". I think that after a brief initial upheaval, it would stabilize things to a great degree, and in a positive manner.

lukifer 13y ago

It is a curious quirk of psychology that a single vote for a two major parties is considered to matter, despite being guaranteed not to sway the outcome, while a vote for a third party is considered "wasted". And even curiouser, choosing not to vote at all is considered the more rational option. Here's hoping that the people eventually figure out that instant runoff can be implemented state-by-state.

dllthomas 13y ago
"Here's hoping that the people eventually figure out that instant runoff can be implemented state-by-state." I prefer approval, but hey, your state can have IRV and mine can have approval and thanks to the electoral college that doesn't break things! Unless we're in the same state, in which case we'll have to agree on something I guess.
- lukifer 13y ago
  Unpack "approval" for me? Honestly, I'm in favor of any modifications to winner-take-all. "None of the Above" would be a major win for the protest vote, with a huge meta-electoral effect even if it never wins. And while it would boost morale and turnout for presidential years, the real effect would be seen if we elected Congress that way as well.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting Basically, you check yes or no for everyone, and the winner is the one with the most "yes" votes. Less expressive than IRV, but also simpler to understand and tabulate.
    - lukifer 13y ago
      Belatedly: thanks for sharing. It does seem an easier sell, because the counting process is so easy to understand. It's not as favorable to third parties as IRV, because "[X] Minor [X] Major" obviously doesn't carry as much weight as "[1] Minor [2] Major", but at least it still kills the spoiler effect. While IRV seems more "pure" in an information theory sense, Approval is elegant in its simplicity.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        That's mostly my views as well, yeah. There are a couple (narrow) weird cases with IRV, too... but IRV is unquestionably a tremendous improvement over FPTP.

noisy_boy 13y ago

Add a third option on the ballot for re-doing election with different candidates: "Dont like either of these two (expletive) - come back with better ones". If this option comes tops in the election, both parties pay a percentage towards the cost of next round. Can't say their donors would be very happy if this shit goes on for months. Oh my god, how will we function without a government? Well, its not like the government we chose is doing/gonna do all that better. Atleast it'll slowdown most of the shitty laws that get passed with alarming efficiency.