Politics and voting

[BaguaKicksAss]

[Marblehead]

It is, IMO, a direct contradiction to complain about who was elected and leads a counrty when one has never voted. It is also my opinion that one does not have the right to bitch about who was or was not elected if one has never voted.

[xor]

I vote in most elections, last time it was hard because I didn't agree with any candidates.

[Marblehead]

I vote in most elections, last time it was hard because I didn't agree with any candidates.

There was an alternative. I voted for Jill Stein.

[Brian]

I vote in most elections, last time it was hard because I didn't agree with any candidates.

 

I frequently find that to be the case. In these situations, I then look for indication that a candidate share at least some of my core values (political, economic & ethical values, specifically) or for signs of a shred of integrity or of a sense of servitude -- something which might indicate one candidate is less destructive than another. Only if I could find no differentiation whatsoever would I consider not participating in the selection process, even if my vote is "wasted" on a non-contender.

 

That said, the perfect is the enemy of the good so I will sometimes take a strategic stance and vote for my second choice in order to help block my last choice if my first choice really has no chance, if I feel my last choice is really dangerous, and if I feel my last choice has a likelihood of "splitting the vote" and winning.

[joeblast]

*shrugs* I fully expect there to be electoral fraud where TPTB feel it is warranted and necessary. being in the state I live in I might as well not even bother voting, if the right candidate has a challenge they just pull something like bridgeport '10 and create a ballot shortage and then find bags of thousands of votes after the fact. 15,000 votes or so they found there and the margin of victory was less than 3,000. and then you sit there and watch the media stfu.

 

or the obvious electoral fraud in the big cities in 12 with the presidential contest. its a joke when the vote counters have a scheme to game numbers.

 

or if that fails, pull something like getting al franken seated and have a judge declare some votes more equal than others, and some not at all, until the right results is obtained.

 

I dont have any faith in the process any longer, the system is almost fully broken.

 

then they say "voter fraud! why, there's no voter fraud!"

 

ahem, I said electoral fraud. voter fraud is small beans and far too inefficient, why worry about a vote or six when you can manipulate the box that contains them...the bogus registrations are just a shell game.

[Marblehead]

I dont have any faith in the process any longer, the system is almost fully broken.

I agree but we still must voice our opinion even if only at the ballot box.

[GrandmasterP]

I seldom vote but reserve my inalienable right as an Englishman to grumble.

It's what we're 'for'.

If we had more choice of candidate I'd maybe vote but usually they are all very similar.

Dreadful people of the type that you'd cross the road to avoid.

:-)

Edited October 25, 2013 by GrandmasterP

[ralis]

The state of North Carolina has instituted the most egregious voting laws since the 'Voting Rights Act' of 1965. As soon as SCOTUS gutted 'section four' of the act, many southern states including; Texas, Alabama have re-instituted draconian voting laws within 48 hours of the SCOTUS ruling. Women and minorities are the most effected.

 

Many of these new laws require certain forms of ID that many do not have or can afford. Such requirements amounts to a poll tax which is not Constitutional.

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/09/30/227591062/justice-department-to-sue-north-carolina-over-voter-id-law

Edited October 25, 2013 by ralis

[Jeff]

Hi Ralis,

 

How is the requirement of showing state id "egregious"? How else would one know if they lived in the district?

 

Thanks,

Jeff

[ralis]

Hi Ralis,

 

How is the requirement of showing state id "egregious"? How else would one know if they lived in the district?

 

Thanks,

Jeff

 

This issue has only been brought up by the Republican right wing since Bush took office. If your concern is in regards to voter fraud, there have been very few cases of. Election fraud is a real problem. The problem is one of requiring persons to pay for an ID which is a poll tax. Many person living in cities have never had a drivers license.

 

Why has this issue been brought into the public venue since Bush but before it was never an issue?

Edited October 25, 2013 by ralis

[Jeff]

This issue has only been brought up by the Republican right wing since Bush took office. If your concern is in regards to voter fraud, there have been very few cases of. Election fraud is a real problem. The problem is one of requiring persons to pay for an ID which is a poll tax. Many person living in cities have never had a drivers license.

 

Why has this issue been brought into the public venue since Bush but before it was never an issue?

 

I am not knowledgable about the issue in North Carolina, but it is a huge problem in Illinois. Below is a small example...

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/21/illinois-counties-have-mo_n_852141.html

[Brian]

I am not knowledgable about the issue in North Carolina, but it is a huge problem in Illinois. Below is a small example...

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/21/illinois-counties-have-mo_n_852141.html

 

It is a legitimate problem in NC, too.

[joeblast]

lol, what colorfully....egregious language. there is no rational argument against needing some form of proof of who you are to enter the voting booth.

[ralis]

lol, what colorfully....egregious language. there is no rational argument against needing some form of proof of who you are to enter the voting booth.

 

I knew you would show up sooner or later to shill for the right wing 'Jim Crow laws'. The Voting Rights Act' of 1965 was passed for a very good reason, which you fail to understand. Whenever I speak for the rights of minorities, you always show up to speak for taking away those rights.

 

Don't give me this rational BS as if you are being rational. You are not!

Edited October 25, 2013 by ralis

[joeblast]

whatever man, free voting for all, no accountability, let's have everyone vote as often as possible. integrity of the vote doesnt matter at all to ya does it

[ralis]

whatever man, free voting for all, no accountability, let's have everyone vote as often as possible. integrity of the vote doesnt matter at all to ya does it

 

You are implying that there is massive voter fraud. It is rare. At least I show my resources.

 

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/06/21/shocker-republicans-account-for-most-cases-of-u-s-voter-fraud/

 

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20120817voter-fraud-rare-united-states.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/voter-fraud-real-rare/story?id=17213376

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/09/voter_id_laws_a_state_by_state_map_reveals_how_much_voter_fraud_there_is_in_the_united_states_almost_none_.html

Edited October 25, 2013 by ralis

[Brian]

Until you come to the realization that the dichotomy is not between Democrats & Republicans or between fascism & socialism but between anarchy & authoritarianism, the voter fraud discussion (as with most political discourses) is merely an exercise in futility...

[ralis]

Until you come to the realization that the dichotomy is not between Democrats & Republicans or between fascism & socialism but between anarchy & authoritarianism, the voter fraud discussion (as with most political discourses) is merely an exercise in futility...

 

That is a specious rhetorical argument which goes nowhere. I hear this from the Tea Party and Libertarians. I am placing the blame where it should be placed. I am aware as to what is happening in this country. I would recommend reading 'Nineteen Eighty Four' if you are not familiar with the premise of the book.

 

The biologist E.O. Wilson has extensively researched as to how species survive and evolve. His work rejects the ideology of 'Social Darwinism' and has found that species display altruistic behavior as a means of survival and evolution.

 

Some human primates have mistaken a non altruistic selfish behavior as a means to evolve. 'Social Darwinism' at it's finest. This is the behavior that many right wing persons display in the political venue. I see very little altruistic behavior among far right wing persons.

Edited October 25, 2013 by ralis

[Neophyte]

I frequently find that to be the case. In these situations, I then look for indication that a candidate share at least some of my core values (political, economic & ethical values, specifically) or for signs of a shred of integrity or of a sense of servitude -- something which might indicate one candidate is less destructive than another. Only if I could find no differentiation whatsoever would I consider not participating in the selection process, even if my vote is "wasted" on a non-contender.

 

That said, the perfect is the enemy of the good so I will sometimes take a strategic stance and vote for my second choice in order to help block my last choice if my first choice really has no chance, if I feel my last choice is really dangerous, and if I feel my last choice has a likelihood of "splitting the vote" and winning.

 

Voting for a "third party" is never a wasted vote; voting for a party that will definitely not be elected in the present election is never a wasted vote: in fact, they are probably the most valuable votes. Those smaller parties would have a chance of getting voted into office if it weren't for the common fallacy of Strategic Voting. I personally do "reverse" strategic voting, haha: I intentionally vote for a party that really has no chance (presently) of being elected, even though the party I most identify with is a top contender and has an excellent chance. This latter party doesn't need my vote: they'll be elected--or narrowly miss being elected--without my vote.

 

I choose to help build up the ranks of the smaller parties. One vote for a major party is mostly worthless, but a single vote for a smaller party is worth MANY votes: The more people vote for them, the more we build up their ranks and eventually, they will become major contenders.

 

So please, if you don't like a major party, then vote for a smaller party--any of them--your vote will be worth more than a vote for the status quo.

[zerostao]

[Brian]

That is a specious rhetorical argument which goes nowhere. I hear this from the Tea Party and Libertarians. I am placing the blame where it should be placed. I am aware as to what is happening in this country. I would recommend reading 'Nineteen Eighty Four' if you are not familiar with the premise of the book.

 

The biologist E.O. Wilson has extensively researched as to how species survive and evolve. His work rejects the ideology of 'Social Darwinism' and has found that species display altruistic behavior as a means of survival and evolution.

 

Some human primates have mistaken a non altruistic selfish behavior as a means to evolve. 'Social Darwinism' at it's finest. This is the behavior that many right wing persons display in the political venue. I see very little altruistic behavior among far right wing persons.

 

You make my point for me very nicely but don't realize it.

 

"Mirror, Mirror, on the wall..."

 

When I read 1984 (which I revisit periodically, along with Brave New World, Animal Farm and a few other dystopian gems), I see in Big Brother an unsettling mélange of authoritarian characteristics which cut across our manufactured political spectrum.

 

You see evil Republicans.

 

The Progressive radical sees his opposition as a monochromatic enemy to be demonized and destroyed, and the masses as cannon fodder and imbecilic subjects.

 

The Falwellian sees his opposition as a the devil incarnate, and the masses as lost souls in need of saving even if it kills them.

 

I see the authoritarian mindset as problematic regardless of the uniform chosen.

[Brian]

Voting for a "third party" is never a wasted vote; voting for a party that will definitely not be elected in the present election is never a wasted vote: in fact, they are probably the most valuable votes. Those smaller parties would have a chance of getting voted into office if it weren't for the common fallacy of Strategic Voting. I personally do "reverse" strategic voting, haha: I intentionally vote for a party that really has no chance (presently) of being elected, even though the party I most identify with is a top contender and has an excellent chance. This latter party doesn't need my vote: they'll be elected--or narrowly miss being elected--without my vote.

 

I choose to help build up the ranks of the smaller parties. One vote for a major party is mostly worthless, but a single vote for a smaller party is worth MANY votes: The more people vote for them, the more we build up their ranks and eventually, they will become major contenders.

 

So please, if you don't like a major party, then vote for a smaller party--any of them--your vote will be worth more than a vote for the status quo.

 

I see your point and generally ascribe to the same philosophy, but I recognize nuanced exceptions which I attempted to highlight.

 

Here's an extreme & highly contrived example. Imagine that you are a pet-lover and the position for chief dogcatcher is up for election. One candidate advocates collecting strays and turning them into stew that very day which will then be served at municipal soup kitchens (where you happen to volunteer), thereby saving money and quickly eliminating the trouble of repeat offenders. A second candidate is a fellow pet-lover who advocates unlimited no-kill shelters. A third candidate is running on a status quo platform.

 

Being a loyal pet-lover, you have quite naturally endorsed and supported the pet-lover's candidate. Exit polling on election day shows the race to be a dead-heat between the first & third candidates with the second far behind. As luck would have it, you are the last person to vote because you've been working at the soup kitchen. Do you vote philosophically or do you vote to avoid serving dog stew?

 

Politics is only philosophical in the abstraction...

[Marblehead]

I don't always agree with George but at least he does always make his position perfectly clear.

 

Of course, if we in America had a King or a Dictator we wouldn't have to vote.

 

(But then, we wouldn't get to complain either. "Off with his head!")

Edited October 26, 2013 by Marblehead

[ralis]