What's the point of voting?

Originally posted by Fishy
That's not entirely true. The power just lay with a lot of people.

Originally posted by Fishy
Still Athenian democracy's have a lot of downsides as well. Mostly that people are to stupid and to busy to vote on every single topic that comes up in a discussion and a democracy like that can not possibly be expected to run a large country.

Thats clearly not true, the people voted and it was very successful...Consider ancient Athens...lack of transport and communication- things we have in abundance in todays world...if the city of Athens and its Empire could be run through that Democracy then there is no reason why the UK or USA couldn't also...to many people nonsense, half the population finds themselves able to vote on the Pop Idol shows...also you call the people stupid...this is a false argument.

Its common when attacking this system to say that the people are too stupid or are not interested in politics...how can you expect people to care about politics when they don't think they have any input! If they did have a chance of puplic office (a real chance) i.e. filling offices by lot then you would find people WOULD become interested in politics...its basic if you want someone to become interested in something...then get them involved!

Originally posted by Fishy
And why do you want the power to be in the hands of the poor? If the poor control everything that is as much a failure to democracy as when the rich do it. Perhaps even more because the rich can buy themselves power which is logical in a capitalist market, which we should all agree on is the best market system for a democracy. Poor people can not and in giving them all the power you take away the power from other people. If you give neither all the power and let the people decide on who should have the power, or in the case of an Athenian democracy let all people have the power then you would have a real democracy.

Although you would likely face numerous problems like the one's we have now or thousands of others especially in larger country's.

An interesting point, but a poor argument I feel. The ONLY democracy is one where power lies with the poor because the poor are nearly always in the majority...thats the definition we get from Aristotle. America is an Oligarchy the country is ruled by the rich few- there is no debate sure the people can vote, but they don't have any power! How many American's wanted the war in Iraq? How many actually support the current President?

Its not about giving all the power to the poor and not letting the rich have any. The rich individual would ofcourse have as much say as an individual poor person...but in terms of power it wouldn't lie with the rich few but rather the poor many.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
It lay with all the citizens.

Well male's who completed their military services.

Thats clearly not true, the people voted and it was very successful...Consider ancient Athens...lack of transport and communication- things we have in abundance in todays world...if the city of Athens and its Empire could be run through that Democracy then there is no reason why the UK or USA couldn't also...to many people nonsense, half the population finds themselves able to vote on the Pop Idol shows...also you call the people stupid...this is a false argument.

Its common when attacking this system to say that the people are too stupid or are not interested in politics...how can you expect people to care about politics when they don't think they have any input! If they did have a chance of puplic office (a real chance) i.e. filling offices by lot then you would find people WOULD become interested in politics...its basic if you want someone to become interested in something...then get them involved!

Although this might be true, it still leaves somethings to doubt. In the Netherlands we have a senate and a congress of representatives. The Congress is filled with lawyers and such looking only at the law and how new laws would affect old laws. Although part of political organisations they are not very political.

The Congress chamber is filled with people who work sometimes 60 or 70 hours a week trying to create bills checking things that happened, asking questions at the rulers and the ministers and what not and trying to find solutions. Reading about proposals of other party's and debating them. I don't know about you, but I can't spare 60 hours a week, along with a 40 hour work week. I have better things to do with my time. That's why I elect somebody to rule in my stead.

If the people would vote directly there would still be a need for an equal amount of time per person if not more, to read everything relating to each bill and each proposal made. That's just impossible. Representatives to the people are the best solution because they do have the time to read the ins and outs, and they do have the education to understand the lawyer mumbo jumbo that the law often exists of.

And you would always have that kind of crap when there is a large group of people running the country with different ideals and backgrounds.

An interesting point, but a poor argument I feel. The ONLY democracy is one where power lies with the poor because the poor are nearly always in the majority...thats the definition we get from Aristotle. America is an Oligarchy the country is ruled by the rich few- there is no debate sure the people can vote, but they don't have any power! How many American's wanted the war in Iraq? How many actually support the current President?

Misunderstood. I thought you wanted the poor to rule instead of the rich where the rich would have fewer power. Now that the poor are the majority (or rather the middle class who aren't really poor) rule the country is logical and I agree that, that should happen.

And how many people support the president? During the last election more then 50% of the people who voted said that Bush could run the country for another 4 years. Meaning he can do what he wants in office because the people elected him. And every 4 years the people in the US get a chance to say they disagreed with a government and they can elect another one. That they don't is their own fault. That Bush made decisions later on that would in hind sight make them vote for other party's is of course the fault of President Bush. At least if he didn't make it clear that he would do that, which he on some issues probably didn't.

With the war in Iraq I think he was always pretty clear. So that's the fault of the American people. But hey they will get their chance to elect somebody who wants to stop the war soon enough.

Its not about giving all the power to the poor and not letting the rich have any. The rich individual would ofcourse have as much say as an individual poor person...but in terms of power it wouldn't lie with the rich few but rather the poor many.

Which is sort of the case right now. The only thing is that people in the government have a good salary, making them rich. But over here at least there are a lot of "used to be" poor people in the government

I've had it with bureaucracies. I want a KING OR QUEEN, DAM IT to HELL.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
I've had it with bureaucracies. I want a KING OR QUEEN, DAM IT to HELL.

Kings or Queens still face the same problems. Bureaucracy need to exist otherwise corruption would become huge. Checks and balances keep a country stable. And they might face far more civil unrest and possible rebellions.

I heard the Netherlands is sorta cool. Is it?

Originally posted by Deja~vu
I heard the Netherlands is sorta cool. Is it?

Well we do have a monarchy. We do have poor people in the government we do have rich people in the government and we do have an incredibly stupid government. Still if you want to vote for the most idiotic party's out there or if you want to just smoke weed and go to prostitutes legally, yeah it's cool.

If you don't need those last two things then you could just as well live anywhere else I guess.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Could I vote for an independent candidate, knowing it's essentially a waste of a vote in such a dualistic country?

That's an awesome reason.

Especially since not voting is actually a waste of a vote.

I'm also not very clear on this notion of the "poor" having all the power, and the "rich" having none.

Also, I think oppression of a majority is still oppression.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Also, I think oppression of a majority is still oppression.

Well oppression of a majority wouldn't happen. If everybody has equal power, meaning no difference between rich and poor in their votes. Which is already the case anyway. That all politicians happen to be rich is just a logical thing considering the fact that you would likely need either an education or some fame. Both get you money. Not to mention that being a politician probably doesn't pay bad either.

Originally posted by Fishy
Well oppression of a majority wouldn't happen. If everybody has equal power, meaning no difference between rich and poor in their votes. Which is already the case anyway. That all politicians happen to be rich is just a logical thing considering the fact that you would likely need either an education or some fame. Both get you money. Not to mention that being a politician probably doesn't pay bad either.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oppression by the majority was what I meant. My bad.

Well that is what a democracy is isn't it? 50%+1 decide.

If you really don't want that then you should a multi-party democracy. It creates concessions in the government and changes things. It also makes the ruling party's weaker because they are forced to break election promises to be able to rule. But still it is the fairest way to rule a country.

A two party democracy has less problems with that, or any other kind of democracy where one party can (likely) get more then 50% of the votes.

Still even then politicians do keep everybody in mind just because pissing off 50%-1 of the country is not a smart thing to do.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's an awesome reason.

Especially since not voting is actually a waste of a vote.

I'm guessing this is sarcasm, which is fine. I realize many people are adamantly opposed to people waiving their right to vote. But the fact that I am giving it thought is at least better off than the apathy that normally dominates non-voters.

I literally can't vote for any of the candidates in good conscience, at least with my current understanding of their platforms and ideals. So if one presents him/herself before election day, I'll happily vote for them. But in the meantime, I'll likely vote for local issues and candidates, so that I'm remaining active, and just not vote for president.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'm guessing this is sarcasm, which is fine. I realize many people are adamantly opposed to people waiving their right to vote. But the fact that I am giving it thought is at least better off than the apathy that normally dominates non-voters.

I literally can't vote for any of the candidates in good conscience, at least with my current understanding of their platforms and ideals. So if one presents him/herself before election day, I'll happily vote for them. But in the meantime, I'll likely vote for local issues and candidates, so that I'm remaining active, and just not vote for president.

I think not to vote and thereby wasting your vote because voting would be almost like wasting your vote isn't particularly good though.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'm guessing this is sarcasm, which is fine. I realize many people are adamantly opposed to people waiving their right to vote. But the fact that I am giving it thought is at least better off than the apathy that normally dominates non-voters.

I literally can't vote for any of the candidates in good conscience, at least with my current understanding of their platforms and ideals. So if one presents him/herself before election day, I'll happily vote for them. But in the meantime, I'll likely vote for local issues and candidates, so that I'm remaining active, and just not vote for president.

Then vote for the lesser of two evils, or if you considering voting green but think it will be a waste vote for them anyway. If they get enough votes they might actually start making an impact one day.

Originally posted by Fishy
Then vote for the lesser of two evils, or if you considering voting green but think it will be a waste vote for them anyway. If they get enough votes they might actually start making an impact one day.

We currently have such opposing ideologies in the 2-party system that it has become impossible for a 3rd party to get the percentage required to receive government funding. I considered Nader the last election, but decided against it for that very reason. And until we become less antagonistic toward whichever side we aren't on (as a country, not individually) it won't become a reality.

And choosing between lesser evils is generally the case with politics, but like most who didn't bother to read my earlier justification you're just assuming I've become apathetic without legitimate large-scale gripes with both sides, which I most certainly have.

Originally posted by dadudemon
[B]Maybe if everyone educated themselves on the candidates, political science in general, AND voted, we wouldn't have as many screw ups elected or at least we would have not as bad of screw ups in office.

If that's educated I'd hate to see uneducated..

Democracy is a bullshit game anyway. Our forefathers supported liberty. Not democracy.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
We currently have such opposing ideologies in the 2-party system that it has become impossible for a 3rd party to get the percentage required to receive government funding. I considered Nader the last election, but decided against it for that very reason. And until we become less antagonistic toward whichever side we aren't on (as a country, not individually) it won't become a reality.

And choosing between lesser evils is generally the case with politics, but like most who didn't bother to read my earlier justification you're just assuming I've become apathetic without legitimate large-scale gripes with both sides, which I most certainly have.

So you want to vote Nader but you aren't because it would a waste of a vote, and you won't start voting for him until other people do so it won't be a waste anymore? What if everybody feels like that. Vote for him anyway. Even if it's a waste, perhaps the next election even more people will be willing to waste their votes.

And you might have very large issues with both party's, still there has to be something in one party that makes it worse then the other. Then vote for the other. If there really isn't, if you really can't think of anything then just vote for Nader.. It's better then not voting.

Different representative, same policies. Yeah, kinda pointless.

But it makes you cosey knowing you're voting and are part of 'democracy' and free world, while everyone else is oppressed and sad.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Different representative, same policies. Yeah, kinda pointless.

But it makes you cosey knowing you're voting and are part of 'democracy' and free world, while everyone else is oppressed and sad.

Then vote blank. Voting is a way to make your voice heard, vote for independent people minor party's blank if you can't do anything else. If enough people stop voting for the mayor two party's people will start to realize something is wrong.