4 ms·

He uses voting as an example. Which begs the question: why vote? If you're living within a corrupt, self-serving political system (we are), then naturally the

He uses voting as an example. Which begs the question: why vote? If you're living within a corrupt, self-serving political system (we are), then naturally the only people who run for office will be products of that system. If a candidate who genuinely wants to change the status quo somehow manages to slip in, they will be prevented from achieving anything meaningful once inside. No matter what, none of these people have my interests in mind. So I ask, what's the point?

talmand 12y ago
"I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created." -George Carlin
Toenex 12y ago
Because otherwise you leave the decision to those that do. Vote. Spoil your ballot paper if you must (these get counted, at least in the UK) but take part in the process. Otherwise you are indistinguishable from those that couldn't be bothered or didn't care.
- VLM 12y ago
  If we know they don't care what we think, then why would it matter if they knew we didn't care? If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it make a sound? If 40% of the population votes, they don't worry about the 40% who are use voting as the opiate of the masses... the problem they see is the 60% who didn't fall for the scam. The arguments in the following essay are compelling. I haven't heard much of an argument against them, historically, other than pure sophistry (that domain sucks, etc) or tradition (you should vote because your ancestors voted) http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff224.html http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff224.html
  - tomjen3 12y ago
    If everybody in the US voted, but only those who normally would vote didn't spoil the ballot the world would notice.
- federico3 12y ago
  You are conflating voting with spoiling the paper (or voting NOTA). Interestingly, many countries took measures to prevent people from doing this (e.g. using voting machines).
chez17 12y ago
Well the majority of people aren't voting and our system is clearly going to shit on a major level. The point is that it's your civic duty to vote, people fought and died for your right to vote, and it's the best non-violent way for you to impact your world. It boggles my mind when people advocate for others not to vote. You know that's what the power structure wants right? An apathetic population. How on earth can people look at our current situation, where the majority don't vote, and say it's working? How can people look at that and say the solution for more people to not vote? I'll never understand it.
- icebraining 12y ago
  it's the best non-violent way for you to impact your world Clearly parent disagrees that it impacts the world in any way; simply asserting it is probably not going to change their mind. You know that's what the power structure wants right? An apathetic population. Not voting does not mean being apathetic, and vice-versa. How on earth can people look at our current situation, where the majority don't vote, and say it's working? I don't think parent is saying it's working, or that the solution is to not vote, but that voting or not is irrelevant to the result, and therefore, why bother.
- emerod 12y ago
  The so-called "civic duty to vote" is really a civic duty to support whatever is done by the representatives chosen by the plurality of voters. As a task supposedly necessary to maintain democratic society, it is lacking in any personal responsibility; and its practical consequence mostly consists in accepting whatever the people in power decide to do.
- bkurtz13 12y ago
  In Brazil, voting is mandatory. Yet, somehow, massively corrupt individuals get elected time and time again. Take a look at the massive scandal the current president is involved in (who has been cleared of any wrongdoing, go figure). The previous president who was from the same party was paying the congress a monthly stipend to pass his mandates. Somehow, with everybody in the population voting left and right with all their muster, another corrupt leader from the same party was voted in. It's almost as if the total number of people voting in Brazil has nothing to do with the quality of the individuals running for office within their system...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Thriptic 12y ago
> If you're living within a corrupt, self-serving political system (we are), then naturally the only people who run for office will be products of that system. If a candidate who genuinely wants to change the status quo somehow manages to slip in, they will be prevented from achieving anything meaningful once inside. If these politicians are as corrupt and self-serving as you say, then it actually becomes quite easy to enact meaningful change. All we need to do is coalesce around important issues and threaten to vote politicians out of office if they don't bend to our will. Schwartz himself was one of the individuals who rallied broad segments of the population to mobilize and defeat the passage of the deeply unpopular, industry backed legislation that was SOPA by implicitly threatening to punish politicians who voted in favor of it. I think people assume that because their vote doesn't cout, their voice doesn't count. Even if you don't vote you can still donate money to opposing political causes (or threaten to), write your congressmen, protest, rally public support, and call out your elected officials publicly. If enough people do this it is possible to elicit change without stepping foot inside a voting booth.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Isn't that essentially what the Mayday PAC has been trying to do? The results so far seem mixed, at best.
skwirl 12y ago
You have gone past the point of healthy skepticism to unquestioning cynicism. The status quo can't be changed? Are you kidding? Is that why we still have slavery in the U.S., women can't vote, homosexuals can't marry, etc? Change may be imperceptible day to day or year to year, but over the long term, it has been profound and there's no reason to believe it will not continue to be. In a decade's time marijuana will likely be legal in most of the U.S. and the drug war a shadow of its former self. In a decade's time I expect more legal protections for transgender people. If this is the product of a corrupt, self-serving political system, then perhaps those are good qualities for a political system to have.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Parent didn't say the status quo can't be changed, but that voting isn't an effective way of changing it. Women's suffrage is a good example, since voting was exactly what they wanted to achieve, and so they had to do it - without voting!
0x5f3759df-i 12y ago
>If you're living within a corrupt, self-serving political system (we are) [Citation Needed]

talmand 12y ago

"I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created." -George Carlin

Toenex 12y ago

Because otherwise you leave the decision to those that do. Vote. Spoil your ballot paper if you must (these get counted, at least in the UK) but take part in the process. Otherwise you are indistinguishable from those that couldn't be bothered or didn't care.

VLM 12y ago
If we know they don't care what we think, then why would it matter if they knew we didn't care? If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it make a sound? If 40% of the population votes, they don't worry about the 40% who are use voting as the opiate of the masses... the problem they see is the 60% who didn't fall for the scam. The arguments in the following essay are compelling. I haven't heard much of an argument against them, historically, other than pure sophistry (that domain sucks, etc) or tradition (you should vote because your ancestors voted) http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff224.html http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff224.html
- tomjen3 12y ago
  If everybody in the US voted, but only those who normally would vote didn't spoil the ballot the world would notice.
federico3 12y ago
You are conflating voting with spoiling the paper (or voting NOTA). Interestingly, many countries took measures to prevent people from doing this (e.g. using voting machines).

chez17 12y ago

Well the majority of people aren't voting and our system is clearly going to shit on a major level. The point is that it's your civic duty to vote, people fought and died for your right to vote, and it's the best non-violent way for you to impact your world. It boggles my mind when people advocate for others not to vote. You know that's what the power structure wants right? An apathetic population. How on earth can people look at our current situation, where the majority don't vote, and say it's working? How can people look at that and say the solution for more people to not vote? I'll never understand it.

icebraining 12y ago
it's the best non-violent way for you to impact your world Clearly parent disagrees that it impacts the world in any way; simply asserting it is probably not going to change their mind. You know that's what the power structure wants right? An apathetic population. Not voting does not mean being apathetic, and vice-versa. How on earth can people look at our current situation, where the majority don't vote, and say it's working? I don't think parent is saying it's working, or that the solution is to not vote, but that voting or not is irrelevant to the result, and therefore, why bother.
emerod 12y ago
The so-called "civic duty to vote" is really a civic duty to support whatever is done by the representatives chosen by the plurality of voters. As a task supposedly necessary to maintain democratic society, it is lacking in any personal responsibility; and its practical consequence mostly consists in accepting whatever the people in power decide to do.
bkurtz13 12y ago
In Brazil, voting is mandatory. Yet, somehow, massively corrupt individuals get elected time and time again. Take a look at the massive scandal the current president is involved in (who has been cleared of any wrongdoing, go figure). The previous president who was from the same party was paying the congress a monthly stipend to pass his mandates. Somehow, with everybody in the population voting left and right with all their muster, another corrupt leader from the same party was voted in. It's almost as if the total number of people voting in Brazil has nothing to do with the quality of the individuals running for office within their system...

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Thriptic 12y ago

> If you're living within a corrupt, self-serving political system (we are), then naturally the only people who run for office will be products of that system. If a candidate who genuinely wants to change the status quo somehow manages to slip in, they will be prevented from achieving anything meaningful once inside. If these politicians are as corrupt and self-serving as you say, then it actually becomes quite easy to enact meaningful change. All we need to do is coalesce around important issues and threaten to vote politicians out of office if they don't bend to our will. Schwartz himself was one of the individuals who rallied broad segments of the population to mobilize and defeat the passage of the deeply unpopular, industry backed legislation that was SOPA by implicitly threatening to punish politicians who voted in favor of it. I think people assume that because their vote doesn't cout, their voice doesn't count. Even if you don't vote you can still donate money to opposing political causes (or threaten to), write your congressmen, protest, rally public support, and call out your elected officials publicly. If enough people do this it is possible to elicit change without stepping foot inside a voting booth.

icebraining 12y ago
Isn't that essentially what the Mayday PAC has been trying to do? The results so far seem mixed, at best.

skwirl 12y ago

You have gone past the point of healthy skepticism to unquestioning cynicism. The status quo can't be changed? Are you kidding? Is that why we still have slavery in the U.S., women can't vote, homosexuals can't marry, etc? Change may be imperceptible day to day or year to year, but over the long term, it has been profound and there's no reason to believe it will not continue to be. In a decade's time marijuana will likely be legal in most of the U.S. and the drug war a shadow of its former self. In a decade's time I expect more legal protections for transgender people. If this is the product of a corrupt, self-serving political system, then perhaps those are good qualities for a political system to have.

icebraining 12y ago
Parent didn't say the status quo can't be changed, but that voting isn't an effective way of changing it. Women's suffrage is a good example, since voting was exactly what they wanted to achieve, and so they had to do it - without voting!

0x5f3759df-i 12y ago

>If you're living within a corrupt, self-serving political system (we are) [Citation Needed]