View Poll Results: Do you vote?

Voters
98. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes: in all elections (national and local)

    60 61.22%
  • Yes: but only in national and some local

    17 17.35%
  • Yes: but only national

    2 2.04%
  • Maybe: it depends on the election

    7 7.14%
  • No: I'm not old enough, yet.

    1 1.02%
  • No: not at all

    5 5.10%
  • No: I'm not legally permitted

    1 1.02%
  • Other

    5 5.10%
Page 13 of 18 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 178

Thread: Do you vote? (poll)

  1. #121
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Do you vote? (poll)

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Out of curiosity, did you equally admire the tea party movement?

    Personally, I respect both movements for their attempts to change things (and I agreed with many points from both movements as well), but I think that both fell prey to the bull**** of the two-party dichotomy so early on that they doomed themselves and became exactly what they should have been rebelling against. They should have worked together, since their goals were not in opposition to each other, but instead they became opposite ends of the spectrum because both movements allowed themselves to become co-opted by the parties. That's where I lost respect for both of them. They became the very **** they should have been opposing because they failed to see how the two-party system (of two very similar parties, no less) is the root cause of the problems they both went after.
    I equally admired their standing up to protest, not necessarily each of their causes, just as with OWS.



    How did it fail to address that?
    Because we do not have 190 million people ordering pizza. We elect representatives to order our pizza for us.




    Why do you assume that the people who keep getting elected represent the majority view? It's not like presidents are directly elected, and with the two-party system firmly embedded there aren't any options that aren't center right available for people to vote on even if they did vote for president's directly.
    Why not work to build support for a platform you prefer for public office? But how do you build public support? It requires consensus, does it not? Than you are back to limiting minority opinion. I'm not seeing the perfect roadmap to utopia.




    Most parliamentary systems, for starters. They all have greater representation of views than the US does.

    Your entire point is that our system works as a representative democracy and that in order to get minority opinion represented in our government it must first be converted from a minority opinion to a majority opinion.

    My point is that our system doesn't work as a representative democracy because in order to get minority opinion represented in our government it must first be converted from a minority opinion to a majority opinion.

    Now if the argument was that our government works, and therefore it's poor representation of minority opinion is irrelevant, I would have no problem with your position. I'd still disagree, but that'd be about it.

    But since you are claiming to support the concept of representative democracy (which is what I support), your arguments become contradictory because our government does a very poor job of representing the views of it's people.
    I'm not seeing all the countries with parliamentary systems showing they are represented by their government any better than we are.



    Out of curiosity, why do you think this is valid response to my question?
    The point I was trying to make was that change in politics requires consensus. Since it is impossible to reach consensus by 300 million people on every issue, compromise is required. With compromise, comes a minority opinion not being acted on. What is your way around that?


    Where did you get the absurd idea that I wanted one person representing everyone? I'm arguing for something entirely opposite from that.
    Which is...........what?



    You keep citing women's rights and civil rights in the context of minority, so it's very confusing. These weren't really minority opinions that weren't represented, they were issues regarding so-called "minorities", but they actually had a large enough following to be majority opinion. In a sense, you could say that they were majority opinions that weren't represented in our laws (which gets into the concept of majority opinion in the ruling class versus majority opinion in the population at large. This is a very important point that shouldn't be glossed over, but it required one to first acknowledge that our government does a poor job representing it's people before it can even be discussed to any great depth).
    What do you suggest?


    I'm looking for a government that actually has legitimate representation for it's people instead of a load of bull**** disguised as representation. Big difference.
    How?


    If you want, I will gladly produce the framework that I employ in such designations. I could do so very easily because without such a framework I would be utterly incapable of making an intelligent and honest judgment of what is or is not a "successful democracy" in my estimation.
    I'm actually more interested in how you get your system adopted without majority support, which by your definition, would exclude minority opposition.




    Here's the thing, though. There is already a majority that believes our system is ****ed up. Even the flag waving 'patriots" who think the constitution is the bees knees are aware that they are poorly represented. Just listen ot them bitch about how there's never really a True Conservative© running for office. (BTW, I'm assuming that "True Conservative©" has been copyrighted by Rush Limbaugh)

    The problem isn't convincing them of that which they already know, it's convincing them that the line of bull**** that they've been fed about "no system is perfect and therefore anything we do to try to fix this one would make things worse" is bull****. That's the tricky part.

    The key is convincing people that the system itself can be improved upon. I mean, it's pretty absurd that many people in this country believe that a system that is almost 225 years old cannot be improved upon in any way.

    To do that, we will have to deal with those who are dependent on the status quo staying in place. Unfortunately those are also the people in control.

    Because of that it might not be possible to make a real change in the system without violence. This is the real problem, though, because while it doesn't work very well, it really isn't so bad that that it is worth dying in order to change it.
    Civil war is your plan?
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  2. #122
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Do you vote? (poll)

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    All they have to do is enact campaign finance reform, term limits and no lobbying positions for former politicians for 3 years. Or some combination thereof. If big business can't overly influence the legislation to favor their goals, then we'll be returning to a fairly balanced, representative democracy. Otherwise a minority of aristocrats are having the most impact on the laws and regulations for the sake of monopolizing government control over economic outcomes.
    I think most people would agree those are reasonable approaches to fixing some of the worst problems in our system.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  3. #123
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,224
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Do you vote? (poll)

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    I think most people would agree those are reasonable approaches to fixing some of the worst problems in our system.
    Well, they're reasonable threats that will never see reality as a whole. But it would be to everyone's advantage to get the corporate influence down a little. They'll end up conquering the known world and owning all the wealth but that would leave everyone else poor. I wouldn't want to be the ruler of a nation of bums but that's what's happening because they've got the electorate divided and conquered.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  4. #124
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Do you vote? (poll)

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    I equally admired their standing up to protest, not necessarily each of their causes, just as with OWS.
    Fair enough.


    Because we do not have 190 million people ordering pizza. We elect representatives to order our pizza for us.
    Then my analogy most certainly addressed it. There were three scenarios, one direct democracy, and two representative democracies. Ours was the third.





    Why not work to build support for a platform you prefer for public office?
    Because that would not address the underlying problems in the system.


    But how do you build public support? It requires consensus, does it not? Than you are back to limiting minority opinion.
    You have clearly failed to grasp the simplest points of my position.



    I'm not seeing the perfect roadmap to utopia.
    Ah, I see that dishonesty is your preferred approach. So be it.




    I'm not seeing all the countries with parliamentary systems showing they are represented by their government any better than we are.
    Well, what you see and what exists are not necessarily the same thing. Many parliamentary systems have proportional representation. You are not required to see that this is a superior method for representation of public opinion for it to actually be superior representation of public opinion.




    The point I was trying to make was that change in politics requires consensus. Since it is impossible to reach consensus by 300 million people on every issue, compromise is required. With compromise, comes a minority opinion not being acted on. What is your way around that?
    My way of working "around it" is to point out that it is a false dilemma.

    I'm not saying minority opinion must be acted upon, I'm saying that minority opinions deserve representation in government, even though tehy are the minority opinion. Our system does not allow minority views representation, thus preventing a significant proportion of the population to be unrepresented.



    Which is...........what?
    That all people of a nation deserve representation and that our current system prevents this from occuring.

    This would, by necessity due to the sheer diversity of thought, require many representatives, not one.

    No single person can represent all views. I'm not simply limiting my position to the executive branch.




    What do you suggest?
    At the federal level I would restructuring the way that representation is determined, first and foremost, so that there is proportional representation by state in the house.

    Instead of each congressional district being able to vote for a representative, the state would vote in a "primary" type election determining what proportion of the seats each party on the ballot would have.

    Since congressional representatives have changed their primary loyalties from their geographical district and local concerns in national issues to their party and national concerns on national issues, the geographical districts have become obsolete. This is one way that the current system maintains the status quo. By not altering an obsolete method for determining representation in the information age.

    Then, once these primaries have determined the proportion of seats for each party for each state, party members would then vote for the people who will fill those seats in secondary elections (which would be voting for the individuals who would then represent them).

    Essentially this would be a Party-list proportional method of determining seats and would achieve the highest degree of proportional representation possible. It would replace the current First past the post style of elections.

    For senate seats, I would lean towards an instant runoff style election where the top two candidates win. It's not perfect by any stretch, but it still improves upon the current approach slightly.

    I'd be in favor of something similar for President which would be far superior to the electoral college system. I'd also make it so that all candidates are on every ballot across the nation and that all candidates from every party that is represented in congress be allowed to participate in debates. (no party that is currently representing Americans would be too small to field a presidential candidate if it chooses to).






    How?
    Proportional representation instead of the minimally representative first-past-the-post method that the US currently uses.

    Despite your repeated attempts to portray my position dishonestly, this is not utopia but a very real thing that exists in many nations across the globe.




    I'm actually more interested in how you get your system adopted without majority support, which by your definition, would exclude minority opposition.

    Good for you. When you are intellectually honest enough to fulfill my request (which is on it's third incarnation now), I'll fulfill yours.

    Now, it's possible that you are avoiding the request due to the fact that you are incapable of fulfilling my request? If so, then all you need to say is that you don't have a logical metric by which you judge "successful democracies".


    Civil war is your plan?
    What part of the last sentence did you not comprehend? It explicitly states why civil war was not really an option. Did you miss it or ignore it?

  5. #125
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Do you vote? (poll)

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    You have clearly failed to grasp the simplest points of my position.
    I am hopeful you will eventually explain it.


    That all people of a nation deserve representation and that our current system prevents this from occuring.
    This would, by necessity due to the sheer diversity of thought, require many representatives, not one.

    No single person can represent all views. I'm not simply limiting my position to the executive branch.
    All the current systems prevent representation of every individuals position, that is my point.


    At the federal level I would restructuring the way that representation is determined, first and foremost, so that there is proportional representation by state in the house.

    Instead of each congressional district being able to vote for a representative, the state would vote in a "primary" type election determining what proportion of the seats each party on the ballot would have.

    Since congressional representatives have changed their primary loyalties from their geographical district and local concerns in national issues to their party and national concerns on national issues, the geographical districts have become obsolete. This is one way that the current system maintains the status quo. By not altering an obsolete method for determining representation in the information age.

    Then, once these primaries have determined the proportion of seats for each party for each state, party members would then vote for the people who will fill those seats in secondary elections (which would be voting for the individuals who would then represent them).

    Essentially this would be a Party-list proportional method of determining seats and would achieve the highest degree of proportional representation possible. It would replace the current First past the post style of elections.

    For senate seats, I would lean towards an instant runoff style election where the top two candidates win. It's not perfect by any stretch, but it still improves upon the current approach slightly.

    I'd be in favor of something similar for President which would be far superior to the electoral college system. I'd also make it so that all candidates are on every ballot across the nation and that all candidates from every party that is represented in congress be allowed to participate in debates. (no party that is currently representing Americans would be too small to field a presidential candidate if it chooses to). Proportional representation instead of the minimally representative first-past-the-post method that the US currently uses.

    Despite your repeated attempts to portray my position dishonestly, this is not utopia but a very real thing that exists in many nations across the globe.
    Go for it!
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  6. #126
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Do you vote? (poll)

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    I am hopeful you will eventually explain it.
    I have explained it. I am hopeful that one day you are honest enough to acknowledge that.



    All the current systems prevent representation of every individuals position, that is my point.
    Really? That's odd because at no point have you even attempted to make that point. quite the opposite, in fact. You actually made the claim, and I quote you verbatim from post 112:

    "My position is that it could be even more successful if it their were greater representation."

    So now you are just blatantly lying about your ever-shifting positions.




    Go for it!
    If I though for one moment you had the intellectual integrity to acknowledge what has been said, I would put forth the time and effort necessary to repeat the entire discussion for you.

    But since you have proven that you lack such intellectual integrity, wasting my time repeating that which you will willfully ignore and dishonestly misrepresent would be an exercise in futility
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 01-12-12 at 04:30 PM.

  7. #127
    Sage
    Mach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    11,460

    Re: Do you vote? (poll)

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    The point I was trying to make was that change in politics requires consensus. Since it is impossible to reach consensus by 300 million people on every issue, compromise is required. With compromise, comes a minority opinion not being acted on. What is your way around that?
    The way around this is, was, and always will be the same.

    You minimize the role of government, and take back the right of each individual to make their OWN choice, minority, majority, individual, right, wrong, popular, unpopular, etc. in some cases where it may be that individual control is not ideal, you still have other waypoints along the way from federal, to individual, namely state and local governments.

    There are some decisions that lend themselves to national control, but I suspect they are such a small set compared to what the democratic party platform supports, or what the republican party in actuality (not in rhetoric!) supports, that it would nullify a great deal of the disconent with majority vs minority, broken system, lack of represntation, etc.

    I do not need or want a representative to make my health care choice for me. For example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    I think most people would agree those are reasonable approaches to fixing some of the worst problems in our system.
    Why? You really think the worst problems have to do with lobbyists, and not the terrible work ethic, fiscal responsibility, and skill level of the average american? If most americans were skilled and well educated, fiscally responsible and had a good work ethic, why would 80% of the democratic agenda even be an issue?
    Last edited by Mach; 01-12-12 at 04:44 PM.

  8. #128
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Do you vote? (poll)

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    You actually made the claim, and I quote you verbatim from post 112:

    "My position is that it could be even more successful if it their were greater representation."

    So now you are just blatantly lying about your ever-shifting positions.
    I see no conflict in the realization that every single person is better represented if they participate in selecting our representatives than if they don't.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  9. #129
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Do you vote? (poll)

    Quote Originally Posted by Mach View Post
    The way around this is, was, and always will be the same.

    You minimize the role of government, and take back the right of each individual to make their OWN choice, minority, majority, individual, right, wrong, popular, unpopular, etc. in some cases where it may be that individual control is not ideal, you still have other waypoints along the way from federal, to individual, namely state and local governments.

    There are some decisions that lend themselves to national control, but I suspect they are such a small set compared to what the democratic party platform supports, or what the republican party in actuality (not in rhetoric!) supports, that it would nullify a great deal of the disconent with majority vs minority, broken system, lack of represntation, etc.

    I do not need or want a representative to make my health care choice for me. For example.



    Why? You really think the worst problems have to do with lobbyists, and not the terrible work ethic, fiscal responsibility, and skill level of the average american? If most americans were skilled and well educated, fiscally responsible and had a good work ethic, why would 80% of the democratic agenda even be an issue?
    I prefer a system that puts the priority on what is best for the community at large vs what a few individuals would like.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  10. #130
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Do you vote? (poll)

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    I see no conflict in the realization that every single person is better represented if they participate in selecting our representatives than if they don't.
    The conflict is that your position requires you to ignore the fact that the system in place is one where representation will not be affected by their votes in any way. The First-past-the-post system renders all non-majority votes totally meaningless.

Page 13 of 18 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •