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 15 of 18 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 178

Thread: Do you vote? (poll)

  1. #141
    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
    That means the 49% has to work harder to get their ideas accepted by more people.
    Please logically defend this position.

    A democracy can only work if people are willing to be responsible to do their part.
    Any "democracy" that can (and does) ignore the views of 50% or more of its population doesn't work, regardless of what the people do. That is our system.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 01-12-12 at 05:53 PM.

  2. #142
    Sage
    Mach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    11,519

    Re: Do you vote? (poll)

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Libertarianism has never been successfully implemented to run a country that I am aware of. Somalia is the closet to Libertarianism that I can think of.
    I only imply less government control. Libertarian as a party, entirely irrelevant to me, and the argument.

    And yes, less government control primarily in the economy in the past 200 years has been one of the key catalysts resulting in absurdly fast reductions (historically speaking) in poverty, child deaths, crime, boom of middle class, etc., etc. Hell, China only recently put on the gas to their economy. How? They decentralized it in important ways. Probably one of the two, if not the, most important human concept of the millenium. Surprised? Of course not.

    Who better to decide what is best for the community at large than the people?
    You're confused.
    Who better to decide what's best for me, than me? Typically no one.

    Do you get the further implication of your position? Even if we accept certain powers that for whatever reason will not be individual powers, but government powers, why then would FEDERAL power be somehow ideal? As Tucker is pointing out, no matter what you have to include minority as an important voice in the system. It's bewildering that you are pushing soley for majority on most things. Think of it as a spectrum.

    <-- Single ruler - Single small group ruler, majority rule,multiple group rule, smaller multiple groups--> individuals rule -->

    Why are you suggesting that majority rule, is somehow qualitatively better than any of the other options?

    Why would a state majority, for example, ruling their own state, not be more ideal than national majority, ruling each and every state, even if one state happened to be a majority of the national minority? You've got to explain this.

  3. #143
    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
    Please logically defend this position.
    Let's say you have a group of people traveling, some wish to go in one direction and some wish to go in another, they either go their separate ways or they agree to a direction they all they can live with. If some decide not to take part in the decision making process, they have little right to bitch about the direction taken by the group.



    Any "democracy" that can (and does) ignore the views of 50% or more of its population doesn't work, regardless of what the people do. That is our system.
    Your 50% number doesn't hold true on all issues. And what would you expect when only 50% vote, and less than that take to the streets to protest non-violently when needed. More input is required to get more output.
    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

  4. #144
    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
    I only imply less government control. Libertarian as a party, entirely irrelevant to me, and the argument.
    And yes, less government control primarily in the economy in the past 200 years has been one of the key catalysts resulting in absurdly fast reductions (historically speaking) in poverty, child deaths, crime, boom of middle class, etc., etc. Hell, China only recently put on the gas to their economy. How? They decentralized it in important ways. Probably one of the two, if not the, most important human concept of the millenium. Surprised? Of course not.
    Somalia has less government control. That is true. We tried deregulation for 30 years and things only got worse. And I'm thinking this doesn't have much to do with the topic of the thread.
    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

  5. #145
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Do you vote? (poll)

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Somalia has less government control. That is true. We tried deregulation for 30 years and things only got worse. And I'm thinking this doesn't have much to do with the topic of the thread.
    So thirty years ago the economy was more regulated? What?

  6. #146
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,074

    Re: Do you vote? (poll)

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    So thirty years ago the economy was more regulated? What?
    This will help educate you on the topic

    12 Deregulatory Steps to Financial Meltdown | Common Dreams

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation#United_States
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  7. #147
    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 Henrin View Post
    So thirty years ago the economy was more regulated? What?
    Yes, for 80 years we had a regulation that prevented investment banks from combining with commercial banks. That regulation was struck down in 1999 which allowed the creation of banks too big too fail. The regulation on commodity regulation was removed and that allowed the creation of ENRON and other unregulated commodity speculation. Both of these led to the Great Recession.

    If you want to discuss this further, post a link to the correct thread, because this isn't 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

  8. #148
    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
    Let's say you have a group of people traveling, some wish to go in one direction and some wish to go in another, they either go their separate ways or they agree to a direction they all they can live with. If some decide not to take part in the decision making process, they have little right to bitch about the direction taken by the group.
    That doesn't support your position, though, because your position is that the 51% decide for everybody (that's how our system works). There's no option to go their separate ways, and there is no compromise. The only option for the minority is subjugation or open rebellion to majority rule. This is because their vote does not matter because they were not the majority opinion.





    Your 50% number doesn't hold true on all issues.

    It doesn't have to. That's why the word "can" was used. The fact that it can (and very often does) is the problem. Better systems (which actually exist, so don't start pretending again that what actually exists is "utopia") minimize the number of useless votes. Our system maximizes that number. No other democratic system has a greater amount of wasted/ignored votes than ours. None.

    That's a very simple fact and very easily seen if one simply opens their eyes.


    And what would you expect when only 50% vote
    The problem here is that you fail to realize that my statement is still true even when you only take those who vote into consideration 50% (or more when there are more than 2 candidates) of voters can completely ignored in our system. That's a fact.



    , and less than that take to the streets to protest non-violently when needed.
    That's because protest is simply another form of majority rule. Taking to the streets is a pointless exercise more often than not. It is only when the majority view is what is being represented by the protesters that anything can happen.



    More input is required to get more output.
    You seem to have the idea that the 50% voter turnout is what prevents greater representation when it is actually the exact opposite: The lack of representation in the system is why there is such a low voter turnout. People know that their votes don't really count. Remember Gore? He won the popular vote, but lost the election.

    How can this happen? Well it has a everything to do with the way our system ignores votes. All votes for the losing candidate in an election are completely ignored. Getting more people out there to vote won't change this cold, hard fact. Since third party candidates almost always lose (in no small part due to gerrymandering), any third party vote is going to be ignored in our system. If you do not have one of the government endorsed political perspectives, you will not receive representation in the government.

    Even if you managed to gain a pretty large following nationally, say 25% of the total population, you will not get any representation in our government.

    Look at it this way:

    If we hold an election with 3 candidates, 1 Republican, 1 Democrat, and 1 Green, and there are 100 potential voters. Let's say that this area is a "red" area on average, with about 60% of the vote going towards republican candidates usually and 40% going towards democrats.

    If the green party candidate gains 25% of that total voter population, it's going to go one of two ways: They gain most of their support (let's say for this scenario 80%) from members of one of the two major parties' supporters or they gain it about evenly from both parties' supporters (about 50/50).

    So let's look at each scenario. So in the end we need 25 total green party voters. If 80% (20 of them) comes from the people who traditionally support republicans, the new republican vote total would be 40 of the total. This means 20% (5 votes) comes from the people who traditionally support democrats, making the new democrat vote total 35, and the green party has their 25 votes.

    Results of the election: Republican wins.

    If we reverse things and take 80% of the green party support from the democrats, the numbers end up being 55 vote republican, 25 vote green party, and 20 vote democrat.

    Results of the election: Republican wins.

    If the way that support is gained is split is about evenly between the two main parties we get: Republicans with about 47 votes, Democrats with 23 votes, and green party with 25 votes.

    Results of the election: Republican wins.

    This is the kind of thing that happens in counties across the country. Over and over again. The only thing that changes is that it alternates between democrats winning and republicans winning. The third party supports never get representation. About a third of the country does not consider themselves to be democrats or republicans.

    If we had accurate and proportional representation in our government, then our congress would have about 178 total members between the two houses (out of 535) that were not affiliated with one of the two major parties. We have 2. That's about one third of one percent. And one of them was only became an independent after he lost the democratic primary in his state. He's a former democrat VP candidate. The other is a legit independent, being a socialist.

    Even if we assume that 50% of the independents in our country would still end up voting for one of the two dominant parties regularly, it still leaves us about 87 representatives who are not affiliates with either of the two government sponsored parties short.

    Why does this happen? Gerrymandering. It's a lovely and legal way that our two-party political system maintains it's stranglehold on our government. You get a place that's getting out of line by building up too much support for a third party to a degree that can threaten this stranglehold? Simply restructure the districts splitting those people up into a nice, healthy minority in their new districts.

    The system is broken. That's why people have become apathetic. Until we fix the system that representatives are chosen, we will never have adequate representation in this country.

    But the big question becomes "How do we change it when changing it threatens the power of those in power?"

    There's the clincher. Democrats and republicans won't be giving up their power willingly. And starting a grassroots movement is pretty pointless because of gerrymandering. Any movement that builds up any steam will be shut down and prevented from having any effect.

    And then it gets exacerbated by many people who buy the load of bull**** that voter turnout is the real problem. Or corporate interference. That latter is only possible because the system is broken. In a system with more proportional representation, such things would have more opposition in the governmental process. Currently they receive no opposition because, as I have said and you have actually supported with your comments about how we've never elected a liberal president, the two parties are fundamentally the same. There are superficial differences, but those distract us from the real problem, which is that our government is not very democratic nor is it very representative.

  9. #149
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,224
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Do you vote? (poll)

    Money is power and our politicians get to spend a trillion and half a year, not including what's controlled in the markets by legislation and regulations. They're addicted to the power that spending other peoples money gives them and they'll defend that position by any means possible. This isn't the sole problem because they've always done this it's how far they're dragging the country and whole world in general into an existence of superficiality. We've let a small group define who we are and what we believe in. They say here are the rules and this is the game, now we win and you slobs stay confused. But the truth is they're the ones becoming the most confused and the tail is no longer wagging the dog. People are being jolted out their complacency by financial hardships and the staleness of a hollow society with no depth.

    You watch this election cycle as Obama tries to pad his resume with reaffirmed broken campaign promises and attempted deficit reductions, while Romney keeps repeating the word, debt, debt, debt. It'll be an exercise to see who can look the most patriotic, dignified, competent of the issues and economy, when in reality we know what they'll have accomplished. To get voted in again without interference from a third alternative with better solutions.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  10. #150
    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
    That doesn't support your position, though, because your position is that the 51% decide for everybody (that's how our system works). There's no option to go their separate ways, and there is no compromise. The only option for the minority is subjugation or open rebellion to majority rule. This is because their vote does not matter because they were not the majority opinion.
    It does support my position, and I also said our system would be more representative with less apathetic citizens. There is an option, work to change the system, all you need is enough people to support your position. Rebellion is no better option because you still have to gain the support of enough people to support your position.



    It doesn't have to. That's why the word "can" was used. The fact that it can (and very often does) is the problem. Better systems (which actually exist, so don't start pretending again that what actually exists is "utopia") minimize the number of useless votes. Our system maximizes that number. No other democratic system has a greater amount of wasted/ignored votes than ours. None.

    That's a very simple fact and very easily seen if one simply opens their eyes.
    I think maybe why other countries seem better represented to you, is that many other countries people are more enlightened than Americans. When we are as enlightened as other people, so will be our representative government. Americans are pretty far to the right politically compared to most of the industrialized world. Its not surprising to me that our representative government reflects this.



    The problem here is that you fail to realize that my statement is still true even when you only take those who vote into consideration 50% (or more when there are more than 2 candidates) of voters can completely ignored in our system. That's a fact.
    I've already noted that voter apathy hinders democracy.



    That's because protest is simply another form of majority rule. Taking to the streets is a pointless exercise more often than not. It is only when the majority view is what is being represented by the protesters that anything can happen.

    One of the most important things I learned in Government class was that Democracy is not a lazy man's government, it requires active participation to work, and sometimes that involves protest.



    You seem to have the idea that the 50% voter turnout is what prevents greater representation when it is actually the exact opposite: The lack of representation in the system is why there is such a low voter turnout. People know that their votes don't really count. Remember Gore? He won the popular vote, but lost the election.
    If more people had voted for Gore in enough states, that would not have been the case.

    How can this happen? Well it has a everything to do with the way our system ignores votes. All votes for the losing candidate in an election are completely ignored. Getting more people out there to vote won't change this cold, hard fact. Since third party candidates almost always lose (in no small part due to gerrymandering), any third party vote is going to be ignored in our system. If you do not have one of the government endorsed political perspectives, you will not receive representation in the government. Even if you managed to gain a pretty large following nationally, say 25% of the total population, you will not get any representation in our government.

    Look at it this way:

    If we hold an election with 3 candidates, 1 Republican, 1 Democrat, and 1 Green, and there are 100 potential voters. Let's say that this area is a "red" area on average, with about 60% of the vote going towards republican candidates usually and 40% going towards democrats.

    If the green party candidate gains 25% of that total voter population, it's going to go one of two ways: They gain most of their support (let's say for this scenario 80%) from members of one of the two major parties' supporters or they gain it about evenly from both parties' supporters (about 50/50).

    So let's look at each scenario. So in the end we need 25 total green party voters. If 80% (20 of them) comes from the people who traditionally support republicans, the new republican vote total would be 40 of the total. This means 20% (5 votes) comes from the people who traditionally support democrats, making the new democrat vote total 35, and the green party has their 25 votes.

    Results of the election: Republican wins.

    If we reverse things and take 80% of the green party support from the democrats, the numbers end up being 55 vote republican, 25 vote green party, and 20 vote democrat.

    Results of the election: Republican wins.

    If the way that support is gained is split is about evenly between the two main parties we get: Republicans with about 47 votes, Democrats with 23 votes, and green party with 25 votes.

    Results of the election: Republican wins.

    This is the kind of thing that happens in counties across the country. Over and over again. The only thing that changes is that it alternates between democrats winning and republicans winning. The third party supports never get representation. About a third of the country does not consider themselves to be democrats or republicans.

    If we had accurate and proportional representation in our government, then our congress would have about 178 total members between the two houses (out of 535) that were not affiliated with one of the two major parties. We have 2. That's about one third of one percent. And one of them was only became an independent after he lost the democratic primary in his state. He's a former democrat VP candidate. The other is a legit independent, being a socialist.

    Even if we assume that 50% of the independents in our country would still end up voting for one of the two dominant parties regularly, it still leaves us about 87 representatives who are not affiliates with either of the two government sponsored parties short.

    Why does this happen? Gerrymandering. It's a lovely and legal way that our two-party political system maintains it's stranglehold on our government. You get a place that's getting out of line by building up too much support for a third party to a degree that can threaten this stranglehold? Simply restructure the districts splitting those people up into a nice, healthy minority in their new districts.

    The system is broken. That's why people have become apathetic. Until we fix the system that representatives are chosen, we will never have adequate representation in this country.

    But the big question becomes "How do we change it when changing it threatens the power of those in power?"
    How did the other countries you prefer get to multi-party representation?
    Last edited by Catawba; 01-15-12 at 08:50 PM.
    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

Page 15 of 18 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... 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
  •