Ikonboard » Printable Version of Topic

Forum: The Classroom
Topic: Voting
started by: dido

Posted by dido on Nov. 01 2000,13:11

quote:
Originally posted by cr0bar:
Actually, you have that backwards. If you [b]do vote, you can't complain.
[/B]

cr0 said this in another forum but I thought it made a pretty interesting topic so I have created a topic and will address it here.

I don't agree with cr0 on this. Under the so-called democracy practiced in both Canada and the US the only input that citizens are able to have in the governing system is through voting. By voting the citizen is stating their preference for a particular candidate and political party. If one does not vote they have given up their right to have a say in the political process. This point gets to what cr0bar was replying to in the first place. I argue that if one gives up their right to have a say in the political process they shouldn't complain. Why? Because they didn't care enough to try and change things so why should they complain about the way things are going now? If the only way to effect change under our current "democractic" system is to vote, then by not voting one is giving up their right to effect change - thus they should not complain when things do not turn out in their favour, since they didn't try to change the system to begin with. On this same note though, I also tend to argue that people who vote for the governing party shouldn't complain about them either, since they voted them in! Of course governing parties don't always do what they said they were going to do.

------------------
"Our hopes are high. Our faith in the people is great. Our courage is strong and our dreams for this beautiful country will never die" -Pierre Elliot Trudeau

Posted by Wolfguard on Nov. 01 2000,13:25

then there is the fact that even if the popular vote picks a winner it's another group of people that realy pick the prez.

VP Fucknugget could beat Gov Bonehead by 90\% of the popular vote and still get into office because of the way it works.

------------------
Nuke em' till they glow and shoot em’ in the dark and let the computer sort em' out.
Then wait for a mutation…

Posted by Observer on Nov. 01 2000,15:45

Plus there are other ways to make your voice heard, like letters to your Congressperson. That and lobbying groups. Your vote in November (or whenever it is in your neck of the woods. (Just a friendly expression!)) is usually based on promises made before they actually make it into office. Once in office, they may change their mind on certain issues. That's when you have to raise your voice and let them know why you voted for them in the first place.

Especially since a good portion of a political official's term is spent trying to get reelected the following term.

------------------
A good programmer is someone who looks both ways on a one-way street

Posted by dido on Nov. 01 2000,16:14

Unfortuntely, half the time when parties/politicians change their minds they don't care what the public thinks, because it's in the "public interest" which just means theirs! The media sets the "public agenda" and the parties compete with each other to get the best policy that benefits themselves. For example in this election Canadians have said over and over that they are most concerned with retaining our social services and what do the parties do? Focus on tax cuts. Why? Because that is what they think is popular and because the Alliance is focusing on it. The notion of a public interest is a farce.

------------------
"Our hopes are high. Our faith in the people is great. Our courage is strong and our dreams for this beautiful country will never die" -Pierre Elliot Trudeau

Posted by Wolfguard on Nov. 01 2000,16:14

i think they should be made to sign a contract that states their promices. This way when they "change their minds" you take them to court and have them removed.

I also think the people should be able to call a vote to remove the fucknugget they put in office. If 70\% of the people vote to remove him in march then we have a new election in November.

------------------
Nuke em' till they glow and shoot em’ in the dark and let the computer sort em' out.
Then wait for a mutation…

Posted by pengu1nn on Nov. 01 2000,16:19

quote:
Originally posted by Wolfguard:
then there is the fact that even if the popular vote picks a winner it's another group of people that realy pick the prez.
VP Fucknugget could beat Gov Bonehead by 90\% of the popular vote and still get into office because of the way it works.

the electorial vote has only changed one election (i think it was jackson or johnson?)

so why does everyone worry about it? sure it would suck if it happened but i'm not going to worry about it because it only has a small chance in hell of happening.

on a different note, why would someone only vote democrat or repub. in every single election regaurdless of who the canidate is. that just seems stupid to me?

This message has been edited by pengu1nn on November 01, 2000 at 11:19 AM

Posted by Michael on Nov. 01 2000,16:26

quote:
Originally posted by pengu1nn:
on a different note, why would someone only vote democrat or repub. in every single election regaurdless of who the canidate is. that just seems stupid to me?

Well, otherwise some actual thought about the candidates would be required. And to form any real opinion about them, you would have to actually research what their position was. And to do that you would probably have to read the newspaper and watch the debates and stuff. And that's just way too much work for some people...

Posted by cr0bar on Nov. 01 2000,18:18

quote:
Originally posted by dido:
I don't agree with cr0 on this. Under the so-called democracy practiced in both Canada and the US the only input that citizens are able to have in the governing system is through voting. By voting the citizen is stating their preference for a particular candidate and political party.

What I meant by my original statement has been best summarized by George Carlin:
"If you vote, and you elect dishonest incompetent people and they get into office and screw everything up, then you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem. You voted them in. You have no right to complain."
I can see how it would go both ways, but don't immediately discount my statement.

------------------
"Everyone's favorite implement for any task"
------------------

Posted by Michael on Nov. 01 2000,18:53

quote:
Originally posted by cr0bar:
"If you vote, and you elect dishonest incompetent people and they get into office and screw everything up, ...

...then you still may have improved the country over what it might have been if you hadn't voted and someone even worse had been elected. But if the cards are stacked against you because voting is reduced to a choice of the lesser of two evils, then you have every right to complain because the system is structured in such a way that there is no way that your vote can improve anything.

Posted by dido on Nov. 01 2000,19:41

quote:
Originally posted by cr0bar:
[QUOTE]
I can see how it would go both ways, but don't immediately discount my statement.

I wasn't discounting your statement cr0, I was merely disagreeing with it. However since you have explained it I can see how it can go both ways. In the US it's harder to vote since it's only a two party system, the choices are limited. But like I said before if everyone who wants to vote for a third party did so the chances of having a two party system afterwards would be pretty slim. Perhaps everyone or noone should complain.

------------------
"Our hopes are high. Our faith in the people is great. Our courage is strong and our dreams for this beautiful country will never die" -Pierre Elliot Trudeau

Posted by Sithiee on Nov. 01 2000,20:17

Wolfguard, the only problem with that system is that a lot of the people who are satisfied with the current person probably wont feel as obligated to go vote to keep them in. maybe if you had some way of forcing all the people who had voted in the previous election to go back and revote, that might be a better system.

and on the subject of voting, i think the system outlined in Starship Troopers (book, not the movie) is the best one yet. you have to prove you love your country, and only then can your vote count, because youve proved that you want whats best for your country, and not necessarily for you. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

Posted by askheaves on Nov. 01 2000,20:25

quote:
Originally posted by Sithiee:
and on the subject of voting, i think the system outlined in Starship Troopers (book, not the movie) is the best one yet. you have to prove you love your country, and only then can your vote count, because youve proved that you want whats best for your country, and not necessarily for you. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

That's a great system, except for those unfortunate folks who were well educated, cared about their country, and would have made an informed vote, but due to random hapistance, they get their heads sliced off by some bug. Yep. Democracy at work: getting your head sliced off by a bug.

(I know that the military wasn't the only way to become a voting citizen)

Posted by kuru on Nov. 01 2000,21:14

not voting for a third party candidate doesn't mean that a person hasn't considered them. i've considered the third party candidates, and frankly, they all scare me just slightly less than gore and clinton do.

i see them talk, and instead of just thinkin 'fucking liars' like i do when most politicians talk, i also think 'fuckin wackos'

------------------
kuru
'sex is one of the most beautiful and natural things that money can buy' - steve martin

Posted by PersonGuy on Nov. 01 2000,22:15

But never-the-less... they might ALL be wackos, but the liars are hiding. I pick an honest wacko any day!

But never-the-less... I'm not voting. And here is why:

A) I've talked to Democrats and they say, "If you elect Bush taxes will go up and it'll destroy the country!" I've talked to Republicans and they say, "If you elect Gore taxes will go up and it'll destroy the country!"
So there's 2 possiblities here:
1) Either one is voted in and destroys the country = I don't care
2) Just like every year, this "destroy the country" talk is of course bull-shit and nothing really change = I don't care

B) Abortion isn't a fair stance to judge a platform on, because it DOESN'T MATTER. I mean, no matter whether the prez is for or against, it isn't really going to make that much of a difference.
EX: Someone said to me, "If you vote for Bush, women will loose the right to choose! They'll be laws against birth control!"
To which I replied, "But there's always a majority against abortion, so laws never get passed. Who cares!"
She then said, "What about that abortion pill? They took it off the market!"
"Yah, and BILL is president! Why does it matter?"
"Uhhhh uhhhh"
The point is I don't care.

Yah.

------------------
<P:\>erson\Guy.exe -PersonGuy *pERSONgUY.cfg
< http://www.personguy.com >

Posted by Sithiee on Nov. 02 2000,00:17

actually, in this election it will matter, because the next pres will be appointing up to 4 justices to the supreme court, who if appointed right could overturn roe v. wade. you might think thats a good thing, i dunno, but the point is that this time they actually have a big effect on it.

Posted by PersonGuy on Nov. 02 2000,01:39

So if either one could outweight the bench, how should I know which party I want to out weigh it?

------------------
<P:\>erson\Guy.exe -PersonGuy *pERSONgUY.cfg
< http://www.personguy.com >

Posted by Bozeman on Nov. 02 2000,05:03

Hi-speed < http://acw.activate.net/rnader/oakrally100.ram >

Modems < http://acw.activate.net/rnader/oakrally56.ram >

It's almost 4 hours long, but if you skip to Jello Biafra and Tom Tomorrow, it's really good. If you want my reason to go "green party," it's right there.

Posted by dido on Nov. 02 2000,05:14

quote:
Originally posted by Wolfguard:
i think they should be made to sign a contract that states their promices. This way when they "change their minds" you take them to court and have them removed.
I also think the people should be able to call a vote to remove the fucknugget they put in office. If 70\% of the people vote to remove him in march then we have a new election in November.

Actually in Alberta the Reform Party tried a system of recall where the consitiuents could recall their MPs if they felt their needs were not being represented. It sounded great in theory however when it came down to it the MPs refused citing that "the consituents do not understand the intracacies of government and often have the perception that we are not doing what they asked when in fact we are in an indirect way". What a load of bull if you ask me!

What do people think of proportional representation? At least in the US it would foster a multi-party system.

------------------
"Our hopes are high. Our faith in the people is great. Our courage is strong and our dreams for this beautiful country will never die" -Pierre Elliot Trudeau

Posted by Sithiee on Nov. 02 2000,08:40

they cant necessarily outweigh it, because theres 9 justices, and only 2 guaranteed spots for replacement, but it really depends on your values. if you like the way bush thinks (or rather dick cheney, cause bush doesnt (sorry, i couldnt resist)) then chances are he will probably appoint people with values like his, same with gore, or whoever else gets in. its really a matter of what you hold important, but if you honestly dont care either way, then i guess there isnt a point in your voting (i just cant imagine not caring at all).

Posted by Bozeman on Nov. 02 2000,09:02

Yes, but neither side has values. Both are backed by almost identical financial backers. Their platforms differ very little. (in one debate, it was 45 minutes into it before they disagreed) Both are, in my opinion, a mistake.

Posted by PersonGuy on Nov. 02 2000,16:14

Zackly... thanks.

I think the only type of prez who can make a difference would be a man of the people. Take Adam Corrolla's platform:
"'PUSH' - 'PULL'... Both are 4 letters long. Both start with a 'PU'. I'm in a hurry or not paying attention; I think it says 'PUSH' and it actually says 'PULL'; I smack into the door and everyone looks! They think they're some kind of hostage situation going on outside!
When I'm in-charge... we change it all... 'PUSH' a n d 'YANK'. You see! I'd be a man of the people!"

------------------
<P:\>erson\Guy.exe -PersonGuy *pERSONgUY.cfg
< http://www.personguy.com >

Posted by Sithiee on Nov. 02 2000,20:34

their opinions differ a lot on certain subjects. jeez, i saw a thing from the christian coalition today which was supposed to convince me to vote bush (but it just made me want gore in even more) and they have shit like "Homosexuals being allowed to adopt children" youre friend bush opposes this, while gore supports it. i still find that whole thing amazing, considering the republicans became a major party through trying to abolish discrimination. anyway, if you look on certain issues they differ, but on some things they cant. who the hell would vote for a guy that said "i support (whatshisnamewhowouldntgiveupthepresidency?) in not givin g up the presidency, and when my term is up, i sure as hell would claim a miscount too!" would you vote for him? no. so there are certain things you cant say and still have any chance of winning.