Miami Holiday

[obscurus]

Exactly. If everyone thinks that they don't make a difference, then the people who want to rule you with an iron fist have won. Your vote is important, even though on its own it is a small contribution.

 

The whole point of democracy is that a single person should not be able to have a disproportionate say in things. Your vote should not count for more than anyone elses. Modern governments are defective in that they have leaders, which is antithetical to the whole concept of democracy. A true democracy has no leaders, no presidents, no prime ministers, no chancellors etc, just independently elected representitives. A democracy fails when the voice of a minority counts for more than the majority, such as a single wealthy individual having more say than they should by way of donating to a political party. Partisan politics is a bad idea, as it creates a conflict of interest for politicians - they have two masters, their electorate, and their party, and they are often not in agreement. Thus the intelligent choice is to vote for an independent, non-partisan candidate whereever possible (as long as they aren't a total dickhead, of course).

 

Actually, we have the technology now to implement direct democracy (ie, cut out the middlemen (politicians) entirely, and everyone votes online, sort of like how WIKIs work). Can't see politicians going for it though. The horror! people representing themselves directly, without being paid off by big corporations!

[Springheel]

It is the major parties in politics that want people to believe that voting for minor parties or candidates is a wasted vote, because they know full well that a vote for a minor party could severely affect their election chances.

 

Voting for a minor party IS a wasted vote, because they have no chance of winning. I could vote for the Green party in Canada, but what's the point? They never get more than six or seven percent of the vote.

 

If you go out and rally 500 people to vote for someone, then yes, THAT's significant.

[obscurus]

Well you have missed the point entirely. Of course, if everyone has the attitude you have , then these parties will have trouble getting more than a few candidates elected.

 

How many people vote for one of the major parties, even though they would prefer to vote for a different party, but mistakenly believe that it is a waste to vote for the candidate they would really prefer? I would guess a lot, but because pollies have been spinning the bogus notion of a wasted vote for ages to keep them in power, people will often vote for a major party instead of doing what they should do, ie vote for someone who represents them.

 

A major party candidate that gets elected on the back of say, Green preferences (I am assuming that Canada has a similar preferential voting system to Australia, being both Commonwealth countries with the Westminster system), will be very foolish if they don't respect the people who's preferences got them into office. Even if a minor party doesn't get enough votes to get a candidate up, the flow of preferences makes it clear what sort of people make up the electorate, and believe it or not, politicians do pay attention to this, even if only for tactical reasons. Your vote still has an effect, even when you are in a minority.

 

I'll say it again: the only wasted vote is one that isn't cast.

Edited January 17, 2006 by obscurus

[Macsen]

Voting for a minor party IS a wasted vote, because they have no chance of winning. I could vote for the Green party in Canada, but what's the point? They never get more than six or seven percent of the vote.

 

You've answered your own question. The Green Party may have no chance of winning, but by voting for them you increase the percent of the vote they do get. The larger the percent of the vote they get the more people will take them seriously and the more people are likely to vote for them. And so on, and so on... until they're in power.

 

Every party started tiny.

[Maximius]

Whether or not a vote is a waste depends upon the election and the process involved. There is no ideal situation where it is one or the other, it depends entirely upon the particular events in question.

 

I voted for the Nader/Green ticket six years ago. I knew they would not win, I was attempting to give them their five percent so they would qualify for matching funds to run against Bush/Gore. Im not particularly Green but I liked some of their platforms. I felt this was a good use of my vote, certainly better than the dog and pony show put on by the two main parties.

 

Turns out it was a waste, as the U.S. Greens failed to reach out to real issues and communities of color and instead tried to take the White House by appealing solely to disaffected Democrats and fuzzyheaded environmental interests. (Not all environmental interests are "fuzzy", Im referring to the dopes who think we can save human friendly environments simply by joining a recycling group or trying a new kind of lightbulb.) Many Greens I know were saying that Nader simply used the run to boost his public profile and generate interest in his organization Public Citizen.

 

In general, I dont give much creedence to the big elections here, the Congressional and Presidential races are rotten to the core. I dont know if its true in Aussie, but here incumbents (politicians currently in office) have an INCREDIBLE advantage in terms of reelection. The laws are written in their favor, they receive more funding to run reelection campaigns, and they have the power of their own offices to create friends and allies to insure reelection. Corporate donations to these campaigns are at an all time high, hundreds of millions of dollars. In such a playing field, you have the freedom to vote for whatever the powers that be tell you you are free to vote for. I call this Coke v. Pepsi politics, in other words no real choice at all.

 

Furthermore, the laws are heavily skewed against third parties here. Its not as easy a matter as incremental growth of a third party, there are deliberate legal obstacles put in place to block their ascendancy to power. With good reason, the two party system serves well to funnel political energy from outside of itself into one of these two channels. Most especially the democrats, who in practice are usually as bad as Republicans but who in theory appear to be the champion of the little people. That they are, as long as the little people dont get any ideas of becoming big people. Then the Democrats true colors run out. Take Kennedy, the man credited alongside Dr. Martin L. King as leading the civil rights movement to its handful of victories. Truth is, Kennedy had no time for people of color but was forced to act on the lynchings and violence when world opinion (especially the criticisms of soviet Russia) began to sting a little too much. suddenly, JFK became a man of the people. That being said, Im still in favor of third and fourth and fifth parties, even if they fail they are a lesson to workers and the poor about how the system actually plays ball.

 

Now some local elections have a degree of legitimacy and your vote can actually make a significant difference. But even here, the two party system, the corporate media, the public culture all work to channel political efforts into forms that can be safely subsumed into the status quo. Third parties have some breathing room here but not much, and when they do come along they are eithe ignored by the press or laughed at. Some folks are even outraged by the notion of attempting to launch a third party, dont you know if you do you are handing the election over to the opposing team by "wasting" your vote. Thats right, voting for the group that represents your interests is "wasting" a vote if it isnt for one of the two main parties. When people ask me why I refused to vote in 2004, I reply "I did, I voted my conscience."

[obscurus]

Incumbents in two party preferred systems almost always have an advantage, unless they have made a colossal fuck-up. But you have just demonstrated exactly what I mean: people who buy the line that a vote for someone other than one of the two biggest parties is a waste, or people feel it is futile, and give up, and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. You need to convince as many people as you can that, although it might seem futile, empty and pointless, voting is still essential. The status quo maintains itself by spreading FUD everywhere it can, but it can be changed provided people immunise themselves from their tactics by informing themselves as best they can.

 

I don't doubt for a second that politics in the US is very difficult for minorities to have a say, as so much of it comes down to who has the most money in the campaign.

 

The personal convinctions, morals and beliefs of politicians are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that they listen to their electorate, and act on it. They can and should change their minds, backflip on issues, as long as they reflect what most voters want. You can't complain on one hand that J. Bloe has weak leadership and on the other say he doesn't listen.

Whether JFK personally gave a shit about black americans is not the point, the point is, he acted on obvious and overwhelming public opinion, which is what politicians should do. When they don't, you should be worried.

Do you want to elect a politician to represent you, or to rule you?

Edited January 17, 2006 by obscurus

[Vadrosaul]

Maybe then it doesn't matter who you get elected, as long as you can sway them with the popular public opinion.

 

Another problem with democracy is that it gives the same level of power to other people who have shit ideas and vote in shit parties who will pass bills of those ideas. I look around everyday and say to myself "I don't want to be equal with other people, I want to be more than them"

[obscurus]

There are two types of government that I support: Democracy, and Technocracy. The former is the most fair and equitable, but not necessarily the smartest, as people make stupid decisions as part of a mob-mentality. The latter is the smartest, as having the most intelligent members of society making the decisions is more likely to result in fewer fuck-ups, but it is not fair or equitable, as only a small percentage of people have a say.

 

Seeing how stupid people can be en masse, I sometimes wonder how good of an idea democracy really is. But technocracies also have their failings, and rarely consider the interests of minorities, and rarely concern themselves with being fair.

 

At the moment, we have the rule of the rich, who are neither representitive, and often are not very smart either, so it is the worst scenario.

[Maximius]

obscurus: But you have just demonstrated exactly what I mean: people who buy the line that a vote for someone other than one of the two biggest parties is a waste, or people feel it is futile, and give up, and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. You need to convince as many people as you can that, although it might seem futile, empty and pointless, voting is still essential. The status quo maintains itself by spreading FUD everywhere it can, but it can be changed provided people immunise themselves from their tactics by informing themselves as best they can.

 

But it usually is a waste. I only voted because if he won the 5 percent he would get matching funds and I wanted that opportunity for a third party to happen, even in as weak a form as the Greens. Usually third parties in the U.S. weigh in at around 1% except for the oddballs like Ross Perot who got I cant remember. I had pretty particular reasons for voting then, and for not voting since then. So sometimes voting is a good thing and sometimes it is pissing in the wind. You have to study the situation carefully and you can still be dead wrong as I was. The majority of the voting that goes on is ritual, carefully spun pomp and circumstance. Now I have to state Im only referring to the U.S., which is a peculiar situation as the Imperial power, stinking with wealth and influence. Im sure in other places the value of a vote is different.

 

 

 

o:The personal convinctions, morals and beliefs of politicians are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that they listen to their electorate, and act on it.

 

Sometimes, and never as they should, and always ready to slide back as soon as the publics eye is elsewhere. They are much more apt to respond to their wealthy donors, the folks who paid cash to get them into office not just some measly vote. Your correct that those things are irrelevent but I was not arguing that they are.

 

o:They can and should change their minds, backflip on issues, as long as they reflect what most voters want.

 

But the voters are fed crap information about issues, they dont read about these thing for themselves only the muck to be found in the mass media. Or worse, that and a combination of half baked websites they stumble across while surfing. Or they know an issue or two they want to see action on so they follow whoever is claiming to address that. Im guesstimating that your average informed voter is about as common as your average person who spends time digging into political issues beyond the chatterbox of popular politics, who reads history, economics, and political science books to supplement what she sees in the news and tries to form a general picture of events. My guesstimates are very very low.

 

o: You can't complain on one hand that J. Bloe has weak leadership and on the other say he doesn't listen.

 

I dont believe in "leadership" and they dont listen to us, not for long at least, usually right after they get your vote.

 

o:Whether JFK personally gave a shit about black americans is not the point, the point is, he acted on obvious and overwhelming public opinion, which is what politicians should do.

 

Agreed, the reason I mentioned it was to demonstrate the myths that modern Americans, especially liberal Democrats, hold about JFK and the kindly, baby loving Democratic party. And he didnt act on overwhelming public opinion, most Americans probably didnt really care, it was elite opinions around him and from overseas that forced his change of heart. Lynchings and riots were tarnishing the American image during the Cold War, and they wanted it to look sparkly clean to the world.

 

o:When they don't, you should be worried.

 

I am.

 

o: Do you want to elect a politician to represent you, or to rule you?

 

Given what Ive argued above, I dont really think I have a choice right now.

[Ishtvan]

Seeing how stupid people can be en masse, I sometimes wonder how good of an idea democracy really is. But technocracies also have their failings, and rarely consider the interests of minorities, and rarely concern themselves with being fair.

 

Singapore is doing okay. However it's a pretty weird case since it's literally a city-state.

[Macsen]

The latter is the smartest, as having the most intelligent members of society making the decisions is more likely to result in fewer fuck-ups, but it is not fair or equitable, as only a small percentage of people have a say.

I don't think being intelligent necessarily makes you good at running a state. Smart people get crazy ideas about 'improving' things, and takes the people where they don't want to go. What a country needs is a man who represents the general consensus and keeps things ticking over nicely without interfering too much in their lives. A boring workaholic, preferably.

[obscurus]

Or a woman. A ruling class made up of the most educated, intelligent and experienced people a society has to offer can still get it wrong, especially if they don't take human nature into account. humans are innately greedy, selfish, short-term thinkers who tend not to consider big, long-term issues like global climate change or pollution or energy consumption until they are forced upon them.

 

The advantage of a stable dictatorship is that dictators usually have long term goals in mind, and will pay more attention to issues that take a long time to fix. The disadvantage of democracy is that it makes it very difficult to consider the long term, as the interests of people generally lie in the very short term.

[Vadrosaul]

'short term' pretty much meaning their term of office for many politicians.

 

I would like a robotocracy, that way the human part of the equation is only on the ruled side.

[obscurus]

In many ways, the ideal government is one that is totally disinterested in human affairs, and for that purpose a robot would be ideal. Or a genetically engineered organism created soley for the purpose of managing and administering the human species. Something that is immune to human motivations, like greed, ambition, lust for power, etc, that get in the way of humans doing the job right. Humans are usually too self obsessed to see the big picture, or think in terms of thousands of years, rather than 3 or 4 years. And the people that seek out political office are the ones with all the qualities you don't want in a ruler.

[Macsen]

Someone has been reading Asimov.

 

But yes, human greed is always part of the equation, and the reason dictatorships never work. So until robots come along and destroy/save us we're stuck with democracy.

[obscurus]

Well, dictatorships usually only last as long as the dictator can hold onto power. Some dictatorships achieve very stable, harmonious social order, though usually at the expense of a great deal of individual freedom. Saddam Hussein might still be in power if he hadn't let it all go to his head, with excessive, decadent palaces everywhere while his people starved.

 

But in the absence of a benign, disinterested dictator, democracy is the best option we have. We just have to all remember that it takes constant effort to maintain a democracy, as it runs against the natural instincts of human beings.

[Ishtvan]

Is Clifton, NJ an okay place to live? I see it's nominally 32 mins from NY, does that sound right or is it actually a lot longer due to traffic?

[SneaksieDave]

Depends on where you're heading. Yes, that's a pretty dense area. Lots of Newark-NYC traffic all over the turnpike isn't far off. If you're headed to NYC, always expect monster traffic and big delays. If not, it's probably not very different from any other NJ city. IIRC you said you grew up in Chicago though, so it's probably nothing compared to what you're used to. Moving to NJ?

[Ishtvan]

It's just a remote possibility right now, but might have a job opportunity there (in Clifton), so I'm sort've considering it. I'm still in grad school though so I would have to find a job that lets me do work that I can use towards the thesis; I'm not sure if it would be possible in that case. Thanks for the info.

[Yegg]

Obscurus wrote:

obscurus wrote: Personally, I would have to be paid a lot of money to go to America, and even then I would stear clear of the Eastern States.

Then contradicts himself:

obscurus wrote: Hawaii is a fantastic spot, lots to see, lots of relaxation to be had in the sun.

You realize they're part of the same country, right?

 

sparhawk wrote: Who really wants to go to a country where he is treated like a criminal? I know that I would never go to USA. If I have to give my fingerprints and are viewed as if I were a criminal, I think this country doesn't really need my tourist dollars.

I see your point, but that's the way all life is. Prices are higher at retailers and we're video-monitored when we go to stores because they've had goods stolen before and they assume we're going to steal their goods. Lots of retailers won't take checks b/c they're afraid it will be fraudulent. You can't return video games to stores b/c they think we will pirate their games and then try to return. Everywhere you look, we're seen as criminals. Being upset is fine, but you're bordering on slight paranoia, imo. That aside, was Germany attacked by terrorists recently, killing thousands of civilians? At least have some dignity for what the USA is trying to solve internally and be patient. USA is trying to figure things out, and if it takes time or a different President to figure it out, then so be it. Don't black-list the USA and everyone who lives there just b/c you don't agree at the moment w/ what is happening with the presidency. The Iraq issue is a different story. Berate that all you want, because there are facts you can read about there. But at least back home where USA wants to protect itself, where it is going through uncharted territory right now, try to understand a bit more for a while as they sort things out. Pretend you were in USA's shoes. Would you not want to protect yourself? Is there a chance you would implement policies right away that you later figure out were a little to strict? So don't go to USA if they're fingerprinting now; that's your prerogative. But don't say, "I hate America, will always hate America and will never go there because they think I am a criminal," just because you hate the current presidency and his policies. That's pretty childish. I'd go to Germany, even though their history sucks and my Audi car was crap. Get over it.

 

I was always fond of the USA, but when I grew older this changed, and by now I'm pretty anti-america nowadays.

Sorry to hear this. Hopefully you will heal over time. I think the world respects Germany now, despite its troubled past. I'm sure many people and countries were anti-Germany for a while. I've noticed most every country has gone through a rough time in its past. Times where the rest of the world shunned them. Look what happens on the other side, though. All becomes well.

 

The poeple vote the goverment, and because of this they are responsible. If they don't go to the voting, then they are still responsible of not going there.

So you you hate the 49% of the people who voted against Bush. Interesting. So what happens if Germany gets a new leader who doesn't stand for anything you believe in and causes the world to dislike him and the country. Yet half your friends like him. Will you like the fact that the world will be anti-Germany? Will you have the power to change the world's perceptions? Will you have the power as one person to make things right? Will you feel unjustly accused of being something or someone you're not? Think outside the box a little.

 

I don't think all Americans are evil or stupid, but by re-electing Bush, they have demonstrated that the majority of Americans are either thick as bricks, bone lazy or psychopathic lunatics.

Politics anywhere in the world is filled with smokescreens. Think about it, if you want to be elected, are you going to tell everyone all your faults? No, you'd probably tell all the positive things you've done, skip over the bad stuff, and paint a rosey picture for yourself. Therefore, getting to the truth, the real deal behind any politician in the world is not easy. Is it conceivable to you that Bush maybe did a good job of distracting attention from his faults enough to make Kerry look bad, or played the religion card to gain support from the religious? Are you saying all relgious people are thick as bricks, bone lazy or psychos? During the election, someone might be anti-abortion, against stem cell research and hear the lovely words of "no child left behind" come out of Bush's mouth and that be the reasons they vote for Bush. So in this case, do your moral convictions make you dumb? In voting for any politician, it's a balancing act to figure out if the pros that you like outweigh the cons. And no one can predict with 100% certainty what the elected politician will try to sneak in during his term. Is the moral of your story that the majority of people in America suck b/c of Bush and his paranoia policies implemented in his knee-jerk reactions to a terrorist hit? That's great, open-minded thinking there. Hate Bush, not the individuals. Are some Americans paranoid, too? Sure. But look at what happened.

[c777]

america is a great country

(puts on my TNT belt)

[SneaksieDave]

My goodness, Yegg!

 

 

(well put, and this is from someone not especially political or nationalistic)

[sparhawk]

Hate Bush, not the individuals.

 

That doesn't change anything. It's not Bush who is killing people in Iraq, or in Afghanistan. It's the soldiers. The very people that you claim may not support Bush. O yeah, I know about chain of command and duty and all this, but that doesn't change a thing. If my son is killed from an american bomb do you really think I start thinkin like "O my, the poor pilots. They may not eve have known what they killed, and they are forced to do it because Bush ordered it." Do you think it works that way? It doesn't. Just as German people were condemened because of Hitlers actions, American people are also condemened by THEIR politicians actions. The politicians may rule, but it's still the people that do their bidding.

[OrbWeaver]

Pretend you were in USA's shoes. Would you not want to protect yourself?

 

Yes I would. I would encourage rational discourse to discover what was motivating people to become terrorists and attack my country, and then take steps to address those causes to reduce the threat of future attacks.

 

Is there a chance you would implement policies right away that you later figure out were a little to strict?

 

There is a chance, but this should be mitigated by having a well-structure system for implementing policies, and fostering a culture of debate in order to continually re-assess the need for them. This is, of course, rather hard to do in an environment where you get labelled "unpatriotic" for not supporting authoritarian, jingoistic policies.

[sparhawk]

Also, these policies that turned out to be to strict 'later' were not really appropriate at the time. But the politicians use such occasions to make stricter policies and sell them as if they were appropriate. They are trying the same here. Even today I heard some news again where the Home Scretary claimed that a terrorist attack inside germany is not a question of IF it's just a question of WHEN. Thus sowing fear in order to get more people to agree to the "neccessary"restrictions to protect them. Incidently it was the same minister, that said only a few weeks ago, that if the police obtains information by using torture, this information should be allowed to be used and not be discarded. Which is essentially a free reign to use torture, because the end justifies the means.