Canada Elects Bush Version 2.0

[Springheel]

Lucky that it's true then, isn't it!

 

Just like it's true that politicians work for the common good.

 

I haven't heard any good arguments for a single vote. Just arguments for lots of votes. Lots of votes have value.

[Maximius]

Dead right. Bush and his ilk are no more related to conservatism than the current Chinese administration is to Marxism.

 

 

An apt comparision. There is a really good interview with a Canadian professor of education ( a former U.S. citizen) who argues that American culture has taken a turn towards fascism in the last few decades. His arguments have four key points: the rise of free market fundamentalism (which of course cares nothing for free markets, only markets where power and privilege have a free hand), the coopting of the media by a handful of gigantic corporations, the attack on public education (a necessity for even a formally democratic society) and the worst of the lot the dismissal of reason based thinking in favor of religious superstition. Heres the link:

 

http://www.againstthegrain.org/audio1.03.06.mp3

[oDDity]

Just like it's true that politicians work for the common good.

 

I haven't heard any good arguments for a single vote. Just arguments for lots of votes. Lots of votes have value.

 

THat depends who's voting.

As an obvious example - you're ill and you hold a vote among a thousand people as to what yor diagnosis and treatment should be. 999 people vote for A and 1 person votes for B.

Democracy has won you might say, but what happens if the one person who voted B happens to be a doctor?

Also, people tend to vote for their own personal motives, not for the common good.

[sparhawk]

Also, people tend to vote for their own personal motives, not for the common good.

 

Doesn't really matter. If enough people happen to have similar motives like you, or different motives with the same result, then you still have won.

[obscurus]

Just like it's true that politicians work for the common good.

 

I haven't heard any good arguments for a single vote. Just arguments for lots of votes. Lots of votes have value.

 

 

I've tried to get this concept across before, but all votes are (and should always be) single votes. You seem to be labouring under some bizarre notion that your vote is somehow only valid if it is for the team that ends up winning. That isn't how it works at all.

 

In a democracy, your vote is only meant to make a tiny difference. That is the whole point of the system. You add your voice to the fray, others may agree with you or not, and the end result is the consensus of society at that point in time. Your vote only doesn't count if it is, well, not counted (because you didn't vote, or you cast an invalid vote).

 

The problem wiht most Western governemts is that they are not Democratic, they are elective oligarchies, which greatly attenuates the value of voting. Regardless, not voting, or not voting for the person/party you really support only serves to reinforce and entrench the apathy and disillusionment that the larger parties depend on to keep the smaller parties from competing. As soon as people stop buying into the bogus argument that their vote 'doesn't count' (an utterly absurd notion), the major parties will have a real fight on their hands.

 

there are two, and only two ways you can waste your vote: 1 - not voting at all or 2 - not voting for the candidate/party that you genuinely support (or despise the least).

 

 

When people are discussing the value of democracy over other systems of government, please remember that in a Democracy, there are no leaders (by definition), it is rule by majority consensus. What most people mean when they talk about democracy is elective oligarchy (rule by a small group elected periodically). In a genuine democracy, you don't vote for a person, you vote for issues. The person who you vote for in a representative democracyis irrelevant as long as they discharge the will of the people. The person you vote for in an elective oligarchy is important, because they have their own ideas about what they want to do that might not be representative of the population in general. In a direct democracy, you don't elect representatives, you vote directly on legislation (no country currently has this system, though some small towns/provinces etc do. It works quite well on small scales, but is difficult to manage on larger scales, though advances in IT should make it feasible for whole countries to rule themselves without leaders and politicians).

[oDDity]

Doesn't really matter. If enough people happen to have similar motives like you, or different motives with the same result, then you still have won.

Of course it matters. If the main personal motivaton is greed, and everyoe is voting for the party that will make them rich at the expense of others, that's not going to make for much of a society.

That's a situation you had for much of the 80's in the UK.

People can and will vote for any party which offers them good times, regardless of the consequences. The Nazi party was freely voted for by many people.

[Springheel]

I've tried to get this concept across before, but all votes are (and should always be) single votes. You seem to be labouring under some bizarre notion that your vote is somehow only valid if it is for the team that ends up winning. That isn't how it works at all.

 

Obviously all votes are single votes. That's why I'm saying no single vote is particularly important. And unless you have proportional representation, most votes are useless.

 

Case in point. In my riding, the liberal candidate won by at least 1000 votes. I didn't vote, because I was, frankly, too tired. If I had decided to drag myself out to the local poll and voted, what value would my vote have had? Absolutely none. The liberal would still have won by around 1000 votes, regardless of whether I voted for her or not. No one would have gotten any message from that single vote, and no one would have changed their policies. Ergo, that one vote had no value, and there was no point in casting it.

 

In proportional representation, at least it would have had a teeny tiny impact, but in our system currently, it has none.

[sparhawk]

Of course it matters. If the main personal motivaton is greed, and everyoe is voting for the party that will make them rich at the expense of others, that's not going to make for much of a society.

 

That doesn't really matter. If you are voting for personal motivations (as you said) then you have gotten what you wanted. If enough people voted the same, so that this particular party came to power, then it's what "society" wanted. The voting process doesn't claim to make the society better or worse, or aspects of therefeof. It only represents the current majority (assuming that everything was counted correctly). So if the majority of the people voted for Bush for whatever reason, it doesn't really matter, if they say afterwwards "That was not what we wanted." or "Bush is doing something other then he promised." because at the time they voted they expressed their wishes and expectations with their vote.

 

People can and will vote for any party which offers them good times, regardless of the consequences. The Nazi party was freely voted for by many people.

 

That's what I said. People wanted to get Hitler and they got him. It's their problem if they don't inform themselve in time.

[sparhawk]

No one would have gotten any message from that single vote, and no one would have changed their policies. Ergo, that one vote had no value, and there was no point in casting it.

 

That's really a stupid way to think about voting. It reminds me of a common proverb in germany "You can't see the forrest because of all the trees."

 

A: Where is the forrest?

B: Right over there.

A: I don't see a forrest, there are so many trees there.

B: But that's what the forrest is.

A: Nonsense. There are just a bunch of trees, nothing else - no forrest.

...

[Springheel]

It may be stupid, but it's also accurate. No single tree is significant to a forest, to use your analogy.

[sparhawk]

And when exactly is a forrest a forrest? How many trees do you need? Two is obviously not enough, but what about 5, 10, 15, 20? Or do you need more? A piece of paper weighs nothing, but a if you ever moved, then you know that the paper stuff is about the heaviest you can get to carry.

[obscurus]

Proportional or not, you vote would have had all the impact on the election that it should have, just as every single other person who voted only had a miniscule effect on the final outcome. That is the idea. The fewer people who vote, the more influence they have on the result, and the less democratic the result. Whether the party won or not is not the point. If you have an electorate of say, 100, 000 people, and only 5 people believe that their vote counts, then those 100,000 people are effectivley having their fate decide by 5 people. If on the other hand, all of those 100,000 people vote for theier preferred candidate or party, regardless of who wins, their vote is counted, the results determined and everyone has had their say. Now, obviously a proportional voting system is vastly fairer than a two party preferred system, but your argument seems to be "my single vote should decide the election, and if it doesn't, then it is a waste of my time". That isn't democracy, you want to have a disporoportionate say.

 

Even if you were the only person in the entire electorate to vote for a particular candidate, your voice woudl still be counted, but that doesn't mean that people should change their policy just because you voted for X - it is rule by majority consensus, and while your opinions will be taken into account, the interests of the majority come first.

 

In your example, every one of those thousand votes that the candidate won by counted for the exact same value as yours did. The message you send by voting, regardless of who you vote for, or wether they win, is "I care, I give a damn". That is enough to get you started. The person/party you vote for then sends the message that you care about xyz. Even if you don't win, the winning party wil still take into account the interests of all of the electorate in making their decisions.

[sparhawk]

You can also consider this: Your party wone with 1000 votes and you are happy, because even though you didn't vote, your party still won. Now maybe 1Mio other people thought the same and it was really a good deal, because only 1000 people decided in the interest of 1Mio others because they happened to share the same interest. But next time some new law should be passed, that your 1000 Vote Man oposes, because this is in the interest of these 1000 people (and the 1Mio hidden other ones), but he easily gets overruled, because the other parties say something like "You only represent 1000 people, but our party represents 200.000 so the benefit is bigger if we do it our way." unfortunately the 1Mio don't get a say in it because they decided to not vote and their man hand't had enough weight for his claim.

[Vadrosaul]

Where do you live Springheel?

[Springheel]

Beaches East York.

 

In your example, every one of those thousand votes that the candidate won by counted for the exact same value as yours did. The message you send by voting, regardless of who you vote for, or wether they win, is "I care, I give a damn".

 

And that's the only message you're sending. Which is quite different than saying your vote is 'important'.

 

Obviously, people who want to affect the outcome of an election will try to convince everyone they should vote. But telling people their vote is important is simply untrue.

[Macsen]

Politicians are all corrupt, they're all criminals, they're all self serving humans (flawed - not gods) who care about today and their paycheck and power only, and don't give a damn about what really should be in the world. That's why they're running for power!

 

What on earth are you on about, man?! Some politicians are corrupt, hardly any, almost none are criminals, and any that are would be forced to resign, many might be self serving (who isn't?) but they need to get things done for their constituency or they'd get chucked out. I'd be out of the job if all politicians were as corrupt as you say, because then the paper wouldn't need anyone to look into the matter. It's truly unfortunate that this is the view of politicians that people have in their heads, while most of them are actually pretty decent people trying to do the best they can for the people who voted for them.

 

I know it's boring but in the UK you can actually read every debate they have in the commons just like you can read every debate by team members in this forum. It's proof if it were needed that at least some politicians do a lot of work.

[Napalm]

I was just about to comment on that macsen. And for an answer I'de say

 

Negative

 

By your standards all humans are corrupt and self-serving.....but you miss the point, which really comes down to..whats wrong with that?? I mean your whole argument is "Hey these people help themselves using there power there EVILLLLLLL.....",why wouldn't they, theres nothing wrong with trying to have power and sucess, it's generally the loser who complains about it as a flaw

[obscurus]

Beaches East York.

And that's the only message you're sending. Which is quite different than saying your vote is 'important'.

 

Obviously, people who want to affect the outcome of an election will try to convince everyone they should vote. But telling people their vote is important is simply untrue.

 

 

Of course it is important. But everyones vote is as important as everyone elses. You are missing the point entirely. The importance of voting is participating in the process of governing the nation. It is not about whether you win or lose elections, but whether you participate that is important. You just don't seem to be able to grasp the concept that in a democracy, it is not about winning or losing, but about participating that matters. When you choose not to participate by not voting, you are forfeiting your rights and obligations as a citizen to participate in the maintenance and direction of your society.

 

There are other ways you can participate in your society of course: maintaining a dialogue with your elected representative, whether you voted for them or not, is extremely important, as it reminds the representative who they are representing.

 

To say one persons vote is not important is the same as saying all votes and therefore democracy is not important. It is pretty obvious that you would rather be ruled and not participate in your country's governance, but you should still understand what democracy is all about.

 

The message you send by voting or not is of the utmost importance, because by not voting, you are saying "I have no opinion on the governance of my country, do whatever the hell you like, I just don't care". That is a very powerfull message to send, as it is exactly what power hungry would be despots want to hear. The more voters that don't care, the closer they get to their goal of ruling with impunity.

 

If you don't vote, you might as well renounce your citizenship, because that is effectively what you are doing.

[Springheel]

But everyones vote is as important as everyone elses. You are missing the point entirely. The importance of voting is participating in the process of governing the nation.

 

Important to WHOM? Are we talking important like manners are important, or important as in it actually making a difference?

 

If you don't vote, you might as well renounce your citizenship, because that is effectively what you are doing.

 

These are the kind of ridiculous statements that the "your vote counts" side has to make in order to convince people to get out to the booths. Again, I ask, how did it matter in ANY way to anyone that I didn't vote in the election that just passed? My candidate still won by a hefty margin, the leader I didn't want got elected anyway, and life goes on. Driving to the polling booth and putting a mark on a piece of paper would not have changed those results in any way.

[obscurus]

Important to WHOM? Are we talking important like manners are important, or important as in it actually making a difference?

 

Making a difference through contribution of course. Your vote makes a small difference, as do all votes, and when they accumulate, that may translate into one person being elected or not, but that is not the point. Voting is not about making a difference to the election result, it is about making your preferences on how society should operate heard.

 

You seem to think that if 45% of people vote for X, 51% for Y, and 4% for Z, that X and Z no longer matter, and 'didn't make a difference'. Regardless of who gets in, they are making decisions on behalf of XY and Z, and must consider the preferences of everyone when making decisions. They will obviously be biased in favour of decisons that please Y, and will consider Z very little, and consider X more than Z, but they will consider everyone when making decions. Now suppose it looked like this: X 45%, Y51% and Z2% and 2% didn't vote. Why would the elected representative feel any need to consider what those who didn't vote want? How would s/he even know? As far as s/he can tell, they just don't care. The 2% who voted for Z will still get noticed: they have said what is important to them by way of their choice, and that is all they need to do, or can expect. The representative of Y, who won the election has an obligation to consider their issues to the extent that they do not conflict with the intersts of Y and X, but, since the non-voters have been silent, they have expressed no interests for consideration at all.

 

 

These are the kind of ridiculous statements that the "your vote counts" side has to make in order to convince people to get out to the booths. Again, I ask, how did it matter in ANY way to anyone that I didn't vote in the election that just passed? My candidate still won by a hefty margin, the leader I didn't want got elected anyway, and life goes on. Driving to the polling booth and putting a mark on a piece of paper would not have changed those results in any way.

 

 

It matters whether or not you engage in the operation of your civilisation. It did matter that you didn't vote, you made a statement "I springheel, do not care what what the election outcome will be, or what happens to my society as a result of the election result" This will be duly noted by those who have a vested interest in you not caring, and would very much like to rule people who have no say in the matter.

 

Of course you putting your individual mark on a piece of paper will not have changed the election result on its own, THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT - your vote should NOT make a deciding difference, if it does, democracy has failed. Democracy is the mutual participation of every citizen to contribute to a harmonious and functioning society, and to be a citizen, you need to go through the processes that maintain your society, otherwise you are just a parasite leeching of the small but important contributions of all of those that do care how your society functions.

 

Your vote is to make a contribution, not to make a difference.

[Springheel]

It matters whether or not you engage in the operation of your civilisation.

 

Again, it matters to whom? It didn't particularly matter to me. It didn't matter to the candidates. I doubt it matters to civilization as a whole.

 

you made a statement "I springheel, do not care what what the election outcome will be, or what happens to my society as a result of the election result"

 

In your opinion, perhaps. The statement I *actually* made was, "I know that stopping to cast this vote won't change the outcome of the election in any way, so I'm not going to bother wasting half an hour of my busy day to do something that is totally unnecessary."

 

Of course you putting your individual mark on a piece of paper will not have changed the election result on its own,

 

And therefore it isn't particularly important whether I, as an individual, do it or not. It only matters if large numbers of people do the same thing.

 

to be a citizen, you need to go through the processes that maintain your society, otherwise you are just a parasite leeching of the small but important contributions of all of those that do care how your society functions.

 

Oh come on. Are you trying to claim that voting is somehow comparable to having a job, paying taxes, and obeying the law? Those things have a far greater impact on society than whether you put an X on a piece of paper every four years.

[obscurus]

Again, it matters to whom? It didn't particularly matter to me. It didn't matter to the candidates. I doubt it matters to civilization as a whole.

 

Are you sure it didn't matter to the candidates? They apy close attention to how many voted, how many didn't, and it affects their policy making. It matters to anyone who is concerned with a functioning democracy.

 

In your opinion, perhaps. The statement I *actually* made was, "I know that stopping to cast this vote won't change the outcome of the election in any way, so I'm not going to bother wasting half an hour of my busy day to do something that is totally unnecessary."

 

that might be what you thought you were saying, but the politicians analysing the election result will have a very different interpretation. They read it as you not caring, and that is the difference you have made.

 

And therefore it isn't particularly important whether I, as an individual, do it or not. It only matters if large numbers of people do the same thing.

 

You are stuck in a logical fallacy, where you believe you are voting as an individual, while everyone else is voting as a group. EVERYONE is voting as an individual. If very large numbers of people do the same thing as you, it can have a dramatic effect on the election result.

 

Oh come on. Are you trying to claim that voting is somehow comparable to having a job, paying taxes, and obeying the law? Those things have a far greater impact on society than whether you put an X on a piece of paper every four years.

 

Not voting is morally equivalent to not paying taxes IMO. You are reaping the benefits of democracy without contributing. Think of voting as a democratic 'tax'. If you dont contribute, you should lose some of your rights as a citizen.

 

In my country, not voting is of course illegal, and carries a jail sentence, such is the seriousness with whivch not voting is viewed. And so it should be.

[SneaksieDave]

Some politicians are corrupt, hardly any, almost none are criminals, and any that are would be forced to resign, many might be self serving (who isn't?) but they need to get things done for their constituency or they'd get chucked out.

You're serious, or no? I've read that a few times and I'm still not sure if your whole post was sarcasm or not.

 

Over here it's quite common knowledge that a decent percentage of politicians (which itself is a derogatory term in the US) are either crooked, corrupt, or outright scum - lying, cheating, stealing scum. Isn't any percentage of that greater than 0% - in leaders - a pretty bad thing? There's no point in me trying to scrape together details from my scant knowledge of things - just find any democratic or republican website or pick up any partisan publication and you'll get an earfull.

 

I dunno, maybe it's a different perspective in the UK, or maybe your politicians are wonderful blokes. Ours aren't, and everyone knows it. You ought to watch television's election season coverage over here some time if you haven't. It's quite revolting really. Hell, over here, we even hate your politicians.

 

(Not me personally; I don't take a very active role in politics because of how disgusting it all is (what's that... another topic starting up?! I'll start it off: "If you're not part of the solution...") so don't take it personally if I don't participate in this )

 

And napalm, I have no idea what you're talking about - your post bears very little resemblance to anything I said. There's nothing wrong with corruption in leaders, you say? Alrighty, then...

[Ishtvan]

Not voting is morally equivalent to not paying taxes IMO. You are reaping the benefits of democracy without contributing. Think of voting as a democratic 'tax'. If you dont contribute, you should lose some of your rights as a citizen.

 

In my country, not voting is of course illegal, and carries a jail sentence, such is the seriousness with whivch not voting is viewed. And so it should be.

 

Talk about the road to hell being paved with good intentions. A good government should protect individual freedom. Democracy is one means to that end, offering everyone a right to influence government decisions, if that is your choice. How is someone who chooses not to vote "reaping the benefits of democracy?" I would argue that they're giving up the benefit of democracy by not voting, since they're waiving their influence on the government.

 

Paying taxes is completely different from voting. We pay taxes because some goods are public goods that cannot be sold individually, like military protection from foreign invasion. If you don't pay taxes, you're receiving the military protection that everyone else is paying for without paying for it yourself. If you choose not to vote, again, all that happens is that your opinion doesn't enter the system. You aren't receiving anything that others are paying for in that case, in fact, you're giving up something.

 

The freedom to make choices is an individual freedom that should be protected, including the choice of whether or not to excercise your right to vote. People who don't vote are only harming themselves. Throwing people in jail for choosing "wrong" in a way that only harms themselves seems completely against the spirit of liberal democracy.

[sxotty]

That's crap. If you're voting simply to keep someone out of power rather than because you want someone in power, then the whole system's fucked.

True, but here let me make a suggestion that would easily alleviate the problem in the US anyway.

 

Have a system where you rank the candidates you want in power and they take the votes, and then it has the capacity to do an instant runoff.

 

That way if you want Jim to win you vote for him, but put kerry second cause you hate Bush.

 

Here people fear to vote for who they want, b/c then some idiot will win. Well there is the solution, of course it will never be implemented b/c then the dems and repubs would find themselves ass over tea kettle on the street. I am actually jealous of other democracies sometimes. The US version was nice in 1820, but this is no longer 1820.