Bingo. There's no such thing as a non-vote because not voting still affects the outcome. Refusing to act is an act in itself. For example, California had a preposition to make marijuana legal. It was leading in the polls, but when it came time to tally the votes, the preposition didn't pass. Turns out the demographic that would have passed it didn't bother to show up to vote. So, even though most people actually want it, they didn't get it because they didn't bother to get off their butts. It's also problematic because elected leaders depend on their constituents to get reelected. If people in the center didn't vote because all of the candidates are wackaloons, that makes it so that only the extreme ends and the crazy people make up the constituency. I think that will only make the candidates crazier and crazier, and thus more polarized, as time progresses.
I'd hazard a guess that most democratic countries probably do have enough apathetic non-voters, who complain that their votes don't make a difference, to make some kind of difference if they actually did vote. Basically
There are people all around the world that are risking their lives just so they have the power to vote. I think that's something for those who don't vote in the U.S. and other countries to think about.
fuck voting. a non-vote is a vote for yourself. those fighting around the world for the "right to vote" will soon realize that corruption and greed doesn't stop once you over throw a dictator, or you force out a tyrant. it's usually the best men that are the most easily corruptable.
I wasn't actually talking about current corruption. I was just trying to say that countries like Libya shouldn't stop what they're doing because of the fear of possible corruption.
Democracy is a dead horse, beaten one too many times. It doesn't even work for us, if you can even call what we have a democracy, what makes you think it's going to work for Libya? Did it work for Afghanistan? Iraq? They voted someone into office, and the corruption began almost immediately. Whichever country held elections not too long ago, I'm pretty sure it was the former, or maybe it was the latter. My point is... Represent yourself, don't leave it up to someone else. Shit's changing, and we need new methods and models. A transparent government.
It's possible, but one group can't change it all. We're all the bottom 99%, but EVERYONE needs to wake up and realize it's going to stay that way until real change is presented and given a chance. Not the false hope and change that a certain someone promised. Don't truss it.
Now it has. Edit: I'm starting to like some things this guy says. He explains things really well. He had another article a few years back about society's altered perception of interracial crimes that was good, but that might be for another thread. http://www.creators.com/conservative/walter-williams/the-financial-mess-in-the-us-and-europe.html
I guess in principle isocracy would still beat laissez faire libertarianism. DERP THE GOVERNMENT IS OPRESSING ME SO LETS ESSENTIALLY DELEGATE CONTROL TO OTHER LARGE ORGANISATIONS SUCH AS CORPORATIONS AND RELIGIONS YEAH THEYRE TOTALLY MORE TRUSTWORTHY. As for the whole "my middle class existence in the USA is just like Libya lol!" chestnut... hoo boy.
Have you ever seriously educated yourself on this stuff or do you just eat up what ignorant people feed you? Because a lot of what you say isn't remotely what you're trying to make it. Here's a head start. Corporations and religions? loll=ol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
While I agree that this new world order conspiracy bullshit is ridiculous, you know better than to use that word.
Sometimes I think when Minus left, Dean decided to pick up the pieces of his troll wagon and start anew. Good fucking God.
"A non-vote is a vote for yourself"? No offense, but do you actually believe in what you're saying or are you that ignorant? I'm sorry to offend you but you really don't understand the way the voting system works in this country if you believe that. By not voting you're not helping yourself, nor doing a vote for yourself. You're just letting the person you don't like have a free ride into office. Nor is anybody else who claims they're "not voting because all politicians are the same/their vote wont count". My view is this: if you are LEGALLY able to vote and don't vote, you really have no room to bitch about who the president is. As an American citizen you have the complete power and right to research who is running, and vote for the "least evil" of the candidates. Even if you don't like anybody who is running, a non-vote is potentially allowing someone you really don't agree with politically get into office. You ask people if they want a "2nd Obama" term, well Casey...if you'd actually vote for Obama's competition, and get other non-voters to do so as well...perhaps he wouldn't be in office a second time. It's that simple. If you don't want someone in office, vote him out.
Oh, wise one, what do you do when they're all fucking evil and not worth my vote? Vote anyway because THIS IS AMERICA and I have the right so I should exercise it? I'm sorry, THAT'S complete bullshit. I don't agree with any of them, except for maybe Ron Paul but he's a fucking looney Christian whom I don't want running the country. I'm sorry I don't agree with your views on voting. I will be sitting at home on Election Day. They're all evil, there is no lesser option.