Terrific response! The only issue I have to take is this one:
I don't have your hope for it turning out well given the deep seated hatred of the religious right and their bible which demands that they murder people like me who don't buy into their beliefs.
Actually, the Bible prophecies that 90% of the world (believers and non-believers alike) will be killed. Interestingly, that's also what some outspoken 'ecologists' like Dr. Eric R. Pianka call for. If the religious right would take care to actually READ the Bibles they beat people up with, they might realize that murder has been proscribed for a VERY long time. Nothing that I've read in the Bible (working on my second time through) supports the murder of anyone, with the possible exception of Jericho. Note that I'm not a part of the religious right, though, so I fully believe they want to do what you say...I'm just pointing out that it's against their own primary source to do so.
Well, let's get on with the process of being vetted by the establishment then, so that in 15 or 20 years, after we've proven ourselves, we might be allowed the chance.:)
In what way? Perhaps we can figure out some of the variables. I'd imagine location has a lot to do with it. Also, I'm a rather large man. Maybe that had something to do with my success rate. I know it had a lot to do with why I was chosen to be the bouncer.
Ok, since you seem to be trying to be deliberately obtuse: Not really an option, because there will be, at the very least, the candidate and his campaign workers who will vote. (Happy now? I assumed this would be understood. Silly me.)
I'm being obtuse? You are asserting that a national election with less than 1000 voters would be immediately and unquestioningly accepted. Say it's 10,000. Still wouldn't be blindly accepted. In the event it was blindly accepted, we'd deserve what we got.
You're missing the point. Someone will vote. If the public becomes so apathetic that no one can be bothered to go to the polls, do you really think they will care how many actual votes the winner received? This is why TV and newspaper usually just flash the percentages.
I'm not missing the point. You are asserting that all non-voters are apathetic. I can assure you this isn't the case. I am a non-voter, and I am far from apathetic. This is the biggest fallacy surrounding this issue: that one can only refrain from voting because one is apathetic. It's simply not true. Also, all election coverage I've ever seen has announced the vote count as well as the percentage tally. Maybe you're not watching the right coverage. I certainly know that voting the 'lesser of the two evils' doesn't help anything. If your choices were: 1. take a punch to the face, 2. take a punch in the gut, or 3. refrain from voting - what would you pick? If you chose option 3, would it be from apathy?
I agree completely. Making third parties viable is the only way I can come up with to start down that road.
Well, the only way I see it happening...is unpleasant. Extremely. I forsee a complete crash of our system within 20 years. When the system is completely gone, we'll have to come up with SOME sort of system. Hopefully it'll be better. Most likely it will be good in the beginning and then degenerate over time, as history shows over and over.
Indeed, that is the case currently. It's an inevitable consequence of our first past the post voting system.
Which is why I believe that participating in the current system only lends it the appearance of legitimacy, not the fact.
Obviously perfect transparency is an idealized state and hence can't happen. How do you propose to initiate a restructuring though? I think the only way short of revolution, which I'm certainly not taking off the table, is to strengthen the viability of third parties.
See above. Not revolution, at least not intentional. Collapse of the system under its own weight is the scenario I forsee. Housing crash leading to the collapse of the dollar - resulting in the complete failure of the system. I hope I'm wrong, because that will be an 'interesting time' in the sense of the curse. To address your point about third parties: I am more afraid that, once allowed in the process, third parties will sublimate themselves into the bad. Remember, there have almost always been only two major parties, although not always the SAME ones.
Well, my only "crime" in that respect... at least in the last ~15 years or so was Obama. I think the jury's still out on him personally although I certainly understand and mostly agree with your point about that.
I voted for Bush senior the first time. That will likely always be my worst "citizen" moment. Not that there was any real choice in that election, either...which is my whole point.:)
That's just plain stupid. That disrupts the movie much more than the phone call.
How long have you worked in a movie theater? I did it for five years during high school/college. I threw out TONS of asshats. Yes, it disrupts the movie. So does letting them stay in, being asshats. Not to mention that many, many more people get embarassed rather than combative when confronted by an usher. Many times they'd see the flashlight heading toward them and get up and leave on their own rather than suffer me pulling them out. Your position may sound reasonable, but it doesn't fly for me. Your conjecture is contradicted by my personal experience. It might not convince you, since it wasn't your experience. If that's the case, I'd invite you to go get a job in a movie theater, and see for yourself.
There is responsible use of cellphones in movie theaters. People get up all the time, and walk out to the lobby to answer their vibrating phones. They cause no more disruption than people getting up to use the restroom or buy some crap from the concession stand. Get over yourself and stop imposing penalties on responsible people for the actions of a few irresponsible ones. Why is it that people are always so quick to place limits on OTHER PEOPLE'S behaviour? Nonsmokers of course have no problem with restrictions on smokers. They don't care because they don't smoke. You don't have a job requiring a pager, so of course you're willing to limit the behaviour of those who do. People who don't drive generally don't mind restrictions on drivers. I bet you'd not be so fond of a law REQUIRING you to use a cellphone during a movie.
Why should we be living in utopia? We aren't the ones with the power. Ever seen a Congressman's house? Someone is living in utopia. Just not most of us.
When, oh when, will terrorists start using heavily clothed hot women to trigger bombs? Then we'd have to strip all hot women within 1mile of President Bush. For security reasons, of course.
Ron Paul used to be a Libertarian. Then he became a Republican. Then he won national office. Funny, that. I respect a lot of the things that he does but he admitted on Alex Jones' radio show that he has voted for a vote - that is, he cast a vote on an issue that he didn't support in order to get a vote on an issue that he did support. I would posit that he is the best guy in D.C., sure, but that's like saying you're the skinniest kid in fat camp. It's all relative. I won't run for office because my religious beliefs do not allow me to lie, and I would not even be nominated for school board telling the truth about everything. I do not want elected office. That means I'd probably be good for it, but there's your catch-22 with our current system. No one who actually WANTS to be a politician should ever be allowed anywhere near real power. What you are saying is analogous to saying that some kinds of assault are okay because the victim is not permenantly damaged. Or saying that you're only drinking half of the lethal dose of some poison. I mean, it's better than a full dose, right? But no dose is best of all. My point is not that a good candidate may run under an evil banner. A GOOD candidate would (and many do) REFUSE to run under that evil banner. Good and evil cannot compromise. Good always honors its word and evil is under no such compulsion. That's kind of the difference between good and evil. The ends DO NOT now and WILL NEVER justify the means. That is a fundamental belief that you may not share. However it informs all of my actions and means that I cannot vote for a liar, even if he's not as much of a liar as the next guy. Politics today always involves compromise, and I am not willing to compromise for the sake of political expediency. That is not negotiable with me. Perhaps that means we'll always have a difference of opinion. So be it. I hope that you will, in time, come to share my beliefs, but if not, well...it's a sort-of free country. Freer than most, anyway, if nowhere near as free as most people believe.
I think it's misleading to say that the major parties became united on several core values (and subsequently found a number of shiny, distracting things to try to distinguish themselves on) with the explicit intent of locking 3rd parties out.
Then why did they unite to lock third parties out of national debates? That was deliberate and 'bi-partisian' (a word which by its very definition excludes third parties).
Can't happen if it isn't close.
Why not? How do you know it WAS close? That's kind of the whole point of election fraud.
I said that the body politic as a whole sees low voter turnout as a sign of apathy on the part of the voters who aren't turning out; no matter what you're actually out there doing, what they see is the turnout percentage and the talking heads on the nightly news, which certainly aren't talking about how folks are choosing not to vote in protest. And as for what you're actually out there doing -- if the major media doesn't cover it, it's invisible to anyone who isn't already enough of a convert to pay attention to alternate sources.
Well, trying to do things that the major media will cover is just another example of doing what you're supposed to do. I would rather undermine people's faith in the media rather than attempt to court that media by doing what is best for those who control the system. Making MORE people who ignore the media will help more than trying to get that media to report responsibly. The problem is that there aren't enough converts. Making more converts is key. That's one of the things I do that isn't voting.
It will never, never happen.
Not with that attitude, it won't.
(And as for this change you expect -- how do you know it's going to be a favorable one? Who, exactly, is going to be in control when it happens, hmm? We might just criminalize failure to vote; there's precedent for that).
I don't expect change. I hope for it. Perhaps it won't be favorable, as you say. However, just because your situation could end up worse than it is is no reason to mutely accept your situation. What comes next MAY be bad. What we have now assuredly IS bad.
Saying that there are no differences whatsoever though between them is incorrect.
That isn't what I'm saying. It'd be like the same company owning Coca-Cola and Pepsi. There are obvious similarities, there are obvious differences, some people are partisian on each side, and no matter which one you bought, you'd be making the same people rich. They'd continue to advertise against each other, of course, because humans love dichotomies, false or otherwise. Yet the end result would be the same. Think of it that way. Whether the republicans are better at stealing than the democrats is irrelevant. THEY ARE BOTH STEALING.
I think it would be far less of a charade with a voting system which had a possibility of not being a charade (IRV, Condorcet, etc) . Viable minor parties are the only way I see a possibility of that happening.
Total restructuring of the entire political is the only way I see anything like this happening. The ones in control do not actually want your input. They want the appearance of your input and enough 'warm fuzzy' feelings for you to keep you happy. If 'your candidate' wins, then you feel like you did something. If 'your candidate' loses, well, at least you voted, right? My point is that the selection is done by others, not voters, and thus your vote actually has no real significance.
Do you have a suggestion as to what could actually change the current conditions enough to make you amenable to persuasion on this?
Of course. Total restructuring of our political process to make all government completely transparent. Not that that will ever happen, even assuming there's a revolution.
I didn't intend to imply otherwise. I have never voted for evil to the best of my knowledge.
Well, I didn't say I have NEVER voted for evil. Just not since I became aware of the real system behind the 'democratic' system. If you've ever voted for a republican or democratic candidate for Congress or the President, you have voted for evil. Not that I'm syaing you have or that it makes you evil.
Well, if you said 'The statement that people used to believe the Earth is flat is a myth', we'd disagree. My point wasn't that global cooling is or isn't an issue. My point was that saying that it wasn't talked about in the '70s is just flat out wrong. I'd love to find an actual issue to argue with you about, though. 'Cause I do the same thing. Just on this issue, though, there's no argument. New Scientist really dropped the ball on this one.
I agree with both of your points above. However, that doesn't change the fact that 'they' (when a pronoun is given with no explanation, it's rather hard to say who 'they' are or were) DID predict global cooling in the '70s. Therefore saying 'They didn't predict global cooling in the '70s' is demonstrably wrong. Just because it wasn't as big then doesn't mean it didn't exist. Perhaps if the internet and the giant, overwhelming penetration of mass media had been around then, it would have been much more prominent. I don't know. I DO know that it happened, and saying that it didn't is just plain flat out wrong period full stop end of story.
What does it matter whether it's up or down? It'll never be zero, which is what it would take for nobody to be elected -- or even all that close to zero, since several powerful groups have made a science of "energizing the base". All you're doing is ceding control.
And voting will give me control? No. It just legitimizes the very seizing of power that is happening anyway.
The options may be horrible, but they aren't equally horrible -- and the consequences of getting the worse of the two can be severe, as recent years should have shown.
Gee, wasn't this election stolen? Score one for the voting process.
Look. Most of what's wrong isn't the options themselves; rather, it's the way we select between them (which is to say -- if the selection methodology were fixed, the options would self-correct). There are plenty of third parties out there, some of whom have solid principals and stand by them -- it's just that they don't get any votes. Why don't they get any votes? Because people who actually care enough to take some kind of effective action are forced into defensive voting strategies to avoid getting steamrolled by larger voting blocks.
That's a rather gross oversimplification. What about the unification of the two major parties to lock third parties out of the process? There are other factors.
But what fucking good does sitting out do? It doesn't convince the body public that elections are corrupt; rather, it just is taken as yet another sign that Generation Whichever is made up of apathetic losers with no sense of civic duty, and the folks who don't sit out go to decide your future for you. Hell, register and then vote Libertarian -- it makes a statement that you don't like either major party, and (at least as importantly) that you actually give a shit, and aren't sitting out on account of pure apathy.
There you have another fallacy, your worst to date. Just because I do not vote, that does NOT MEAN that I 'sit out' of the process entirely. Activism can take many forms, and voting is NOT REALLY DOING ANYTHING. The choice has already been made. You are just helping to legitimize it. You are facilitating the system. If voter turnout drops to 1% or less, the system WILL change. Don't prop up the evil we have. Work to change it.
I understand your point, but I think you're wrong. The charade of the voting system can't be maintained without your help. It is not a charade worth continuing. Therefore, you should not support it. I respect your right to do so, but you will not convince me, under current conditions, to do so. I haven't voted for evil since I became aware of the problem. My integrity is fine.
You want excellent free service and support while also paying extremely cheap prices for your computer. You are stupid. If you want super-duper support, PAY FOR IT. Additionally, I have many years of in-field support experience. I have spoken to Dell support many, many times. Sometimes I've had bad experiences. Sometimes I've had great experiences. It depends on who you happen to get. Of course, the enterprise support is typically awesome. That's 'cause it costs enough to allow for the hiring and keeping of quality, knowledgeable employees.
Funny. You seem to directly contradict this statement later in your post. It certainly IS an option.
Unfortunately, not voting at all (your suggestion) is the logical conclusion of the "existing, non-working, path". Voter turnout is horrid. Making it worse won't help at all. Because you can be certain that even if you convince the American public not to vote, the politicians, and their campaign workers will vote. Forgot about them didn't you?
They'll have plenty of trouble explaining how a President got elected when nobody voted for him or her. I realize that power vacuums get filled. I also realize that things will have to become much more blatant for the average person to notice. Participating in the sham of our electoral process only hurts people. When they're trying to convince you on Fox News that it's wonderful that the President was elected by 501 votes to the challenger's 500 things will get very interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
You'd be really blue after 44 years even if we did find out the truth then.
Terrific response! The only issue I have to take is this one:
I don't have your hope for it turning out well given the deep seated hatred of the religious right and their bible which demands that they murder people like me who don't buy into their beliefs.
Actually, the Bible prophecies that 90% of the world (believers and non-believers alike) will be killed. Interestingly, that's also what some outspoken 'ecologists' like Dr. Eric R. Pianka call for. If the religious right would take care to actually READ the Bibles they beat people up with, they might realize that murder has been proscribed for a VERY long time. Nothing that I've read in the Bible (working on my second time through) supports the murder of anyone, with the possible exception of Jericho. Note that I'm not a part of the religious right, though, so I fully believe they want to do what you say...I'm just pointing out that it's against their own primary source to do so.
Well, let's get on with the process of being vetted by the establishment then, so that in 15 or 20 years, after we've proven ourselves, we might be allowed the chance. :)
In what way? Perhaps we can figure out some of the variables. I'd imagine location has a lot to do with it. Also, I'm a rather large man. Maybe that had something to do with my success rate. I know it had a lot to do with why I was chosen to be the bouncer.
so YOU'RE the unknown stuntman. er, not anymore, i suppose.
er. 1854 comes before 1803, i meant. stupid logical mind subconsciously 'correcting' itself.
Funny, your link seems to indicate that Lazare Carnot wrote about it 51 years before Clausius. Unless 1803 comes before 1854 somehow.
Ok, since you seem to be trying to be deliberately obtuse: Not really an option, because there will be, at the very least, the candidate and his campaign workers who will vote. (Happy now? I assumed this would be understood. Silly me.)
I'm being obtuse? You are asserting that a national election with less than 1000 voters would be immediately and unquestioningly accepted. Say it's 10,000. Still wouldn't be blindly accepted. In the event it was blindly accepted, we'd deserve what we got.
You're missing the point. Someone will vote. If the public becomes so apathetic that no one can be bothered to go to the polls, do you really think they will care how many actual votes the winner received? This is why TV and newspaper usually just flash the percentages.
I'm not missing the point. You are asserting that all non-voters are apathetic. I can assure you this isn't the case. I am a non-voter, and I am far from apathetic. This is the biggest fallacy surrounding this issue: that one can only refrain from voting because one is apathetic. It's simply not true. Also, all election coverage I've ever seen has announced the vote count as well as the percentage tally. Maybe you're not watching the right coverage. I certainly know that voting the 'lesser of the two evils' doesn't help anything. If your choices were: 1. take a punch to the face, 2. take a punch in the gut, or 3. refrain from voting - what would you pick? If you chose option 3, would it be from apathy?
no, the universe is unfolding toward equilibrium.
I agree completely. Making third parties viable is the only way I can come up with to start down that road.
:)
Well, the only way I see it happening...is unpleasant. Extremely. I forsee a complete crash of our system within 20 years. When the system is completely gone, we'll have to come up with SOME sort of system. Hopefully it'll be better. Most likely it will be good in the beginning and then degenerate over time, as history shows over and over.
Indeed, that is the case currently. It's an inevitable consequence of our first past the post voting system.
Which is why I believe that participating in the current system only lends it the appearance of legitimacy, not the fact.
Obviously perfect transparency is an idealized state and hence can't happen. How do you propose to initiate a restructuring though? I think the only way short of revolution, which I'm certainly not taking off the table, is to strengthen the viability of third parties.
See above. Not revolution, at least not intentional. Collapse of the system under its own weight is the scenario I forsee. Housing crash leading to the collapse of the dollar - resulting in the complete failure of the system. I hope I'm wrong, because that will be an 'interesting time' in the sense of the curse. To address your point about third parties: I am more afraid that, once allowed in the process, third parties will sublimate themselves into the bad. Remember, there have almost always been only two major parties, although not always the SAME ones.
Well, my only "crime" in that respect... at least in the last ~15 years or so was Obama. I think the jury's still out on him personally although I certainly understand and mostly agree with your point about that.
I voted for Bush senior the first time. That will likely always be my worst "citizen" moment. Not that there was any real choice in that election, either...which is my whole point.
That's just plain stupid. That disrupts the movie much more than the phone call.
How long have you worked in a movie theater? I did it for five years during high school/college. I threw out TONS of asshats. Yes, it disrupts the movie. So does letting them stay in, being asshats. Not to mention that many, many more people get embarassed rather than combative when confronted by an usher. Many times they'd see the flashlight heading toward them and get up and leave on their own rather than suffer me pulling them out. Your position may sound reasonable, but it doesn't fly for me. Your conjecture is contradicted by my personal experience. It might not convince you, since it wasn't your experience. If that's the case, I'd invite you to go get a job in a movie theater, and see for yourself.
There is responsible use of cellphones in movie theaters. People get up all the time, and walk out to the lobby to answer their vibrating phones. They cause no more disruption than people getting up to use the restroom or buy some crap from the concession stand. Get over yourself and stop imposing penalties on responsible people for the actions of a few irresponsible ones. Why is it that people are always so quick to place limits on OTHER PEOPLE'S behaviour? Nonsmokers of course have no problem with restrictions on smokers. They don't care because they don't smoke. You don't have a job requiring a pager, so of course you're willing to limit the behaviour of those who do. People who don't drive generally don't mind restrictions on drivers. I bet you'd not be so fond of a law REQUIRING you to use a cellphone during a movie.
national security (I don't really like that term, but I haven't found a better one)
:)
I use the term "governmental security". Feel free to adopt it if you like it and ignore it if you don't.
shouldn't we be living in utopia by now?
Why should we be living in utopia? We aren't the ones with the power. Ever seen a Congressman's house? Someone is living in utopia. Just not most of us.
When, oh when, will terrorists start using heavily clothed hot women to trigger bombs? Then we'd have to strip all hot women within 1mile of President Bush. For security reasons, of course.
Ron Paul used to be a Libertarian. Then he became a Republican. Then he won national office. Funny, that. I respect a lot of the things that he does but he admitted on Alex Jones' radio show that he has voted for a vote - that is, he cast a vote on an issue that he didn't support in order to get a vote on an issue that he did support. I would posit that he is the best guy in D.C., sure, but that's like saying you're the skinniest kid in fat camp. It's all relative.
I won't run for office because my religious beliefs do not allow me to lie, and I would not even be nominated for school board telling the truth about everything. I do not want elected office. That means I'd probably be good for it, but there's your catch-22 with our current system. No one who actually WANTS to be a politician should ever be allowed anywhere near real power. What you are saying is analogous to saying that some kinds of assault are okay because the victim is not permenantly damaged. Or saying that you're only drinking half of the lethal dose of some poison. I mean, it's better than a full dose, right? But no dose is best of all. My point is not that a good candidate may run under an evil banner. A GOOD candidate would (and many do) REFUSE to run under that evil banner. Good and evil cannot compromise. Good always honors its word and evil is under no such compulsion. That's kind of the difference between good and evil. The ends DO NOT now and WILL NEVER justify the means. That is a fundamental belief that you may not share. However it informs all of my actions and means that I cannot vote for a liar, even if he's not as much of a liar as the next guy. Politics today always involves compromise, and I am not willing to compromise for the sake of political expediency. That is not negotiable with me. Perhaps that means we'll always have a difference of opinion. So be it. I hope that you will, in time, come to share my beliefs, but if not, well...it's a sort-of free country. Freer than most, anyway, if nowhere near as free as most people believe.
I think it's misleading to say that the major parties became united on several core values (and subsequently found a number of shiny, distracting things to try to distinguish themselves on) with the explicit intent of locking 3rd parties out.
Then why did they unite to lock third parties out of national debates? That was deliberate and 'bi-partisian' (a word which by its very definition excludes third parties).
Can't happen if it isn't close.
Why not? How do you know it WAS close? That's kind of the whole point of election fraud.
I said that the body politic as a whole sees low voter turnout as a sign of apathy on the part of the voters who aren't turning out; no matter what you're actually out there doing, what they see is the turnout percentage and the talking heads on the nightly news, which certainly aren't talking about how folks are choosing not to vote in protest. And as for what you're actually out there doing -- if the major media doesn't cover it, it's invisible to anyone who isn't already enough of a convert to pay attention to alternate sources.
Well, trying to do things that the major media will cover is just another example of doing what you're supposed to do. I would rather undermine people's faith in the media rather than attempt to court that media by doing what is best for those who control the system. Making MORE people who ignore the media will help more than trying to get that media to report responsibly. The problem is that there aren't enough converts. Making more converts is key. That's one of the things I do that isn't voting.
It will never, never happen.
Not with that attitude, it won't.
(And as for this change you expect -- how do you know it's going to be a favorable one? Who, exactly, is going to be in control when it happens, hmm? We might just criminalize failure to vote; there's precedent for that).
I don't expect change. I hope for it. Perhaps it won't be favorable, as you say. However, just because your situation could end up worse than it is is no reason to mutely accept your situation. What comes next MAY be bad. What we have now assuredly IS bad.
Saying that there are no differences whatsoever though between them is incorrect.
That isn't what I'm saying. It'd be like the same company owning Coca-Cola and Pepsi. There are obvious similarities, there are obvious differences, some people are partisian on each side, and no matter which one you bought, you'd be making the same people rich. They'd continue to advertise against each other, of course, because humans love dichotomies, false or otherwise. Yet the end result would be the same. Think of it that way. Whether the republicans are better at stealing than the democrats is irrelevant. THEY ARE BOTH STEALING.
I think it would be far less of a charade with a voting system which had a possibility of not being a charade (IRV, Condorcet, etc) . Viable minor parties are the only way I see a possibility of that happening.
Total restructuring of the entire political is the only way I see anything like this happening. The ones in control do not actually want your input. They want the appearance of your input and enough 'warm fuzzy' feelings for you to keep you happy. If 'your candidate' wins, then you feel like you did something. If 'your candidate' loses, well, at least you voted, right? My point is that the selection is done by others, not voters, and thus your vote actually has no real significance.
Do you have a suggestion as to what could actually change the current conditions enough to make you amenable to persuasion on this?
Of course. Total restructuring of our political process to make all government completely transparent. Not that that will ever happen, even assuming there's a revolution.
I didn't intend to imply otherwise. I have never voted for evil to the best of my knowledge.
Well, I didn't say I have NEVER voted for evil. Just not since I became aware of the real system behind the 'democratic' system. If you've ever voted for a republican or democratic candidate for Congress or the President, you have voted for evil. Not that I'm syaing you have or that it makes you evil.
Well, if you said 'The statement that people used to believe the Earth is flat is a myth', we'd disagree. My point wasn't that global cooling is or isn't an issue. My point was that saying that it wasn't talked about in the '70s is just flat out wrong. I'd love to find an actual issue to argue with you about, though. 'Cause I do the same thing. Just on this issue, though, there's no argument. New Scientist really dropped the ball on this one.
I agree with both of your points above. However, that doesn't change the fact that 'they' (when a pronoun is given with no explanation, it's rather hard to say who 'they' are or were) DID predict global cooling in the '70s. Therefore saying 'They didn't predict global cooling in the '70s' is demonstrably wrong. Just because it wasn't as big then doesn't mean it didn't exist. Perhaps if the internet and the giant, overwhelming penetration of mass media had been around then, it would have been much more prominent. I don't know. I DO know that it happened, and saying that it didn't is just plain flat out wrong period full stop end of story.
What does it matter whether it's up or down? It'll never be zero, which is what it would take for nobody to be elected -- or even all that close to zero, since several powerful groups have made a science of "energizing the base". All you're doing is ceding control.
And voting will give me control? No. It just legitimizes the very seizing of power that is happening anyway.
The options may be horrible, but they aren't equally horrible -- and the consequences of getting the worse of the two can be severe, as recent years should have shown.
Gee, wasn't this election stolen? Score one for the voting process.
Look. Most of what's wrong isn't the options themselves; rather, it's the way we select between them (which is to say -- if the selection methodology were fixed, the options would self-correct). There are plenty of third parties out there, some of whom have solid principals and stand by them -- it's just that they don't get any votes. Why don't they get any votes? Because people who actually care enough to take some kind of effective action are forced into defensive voting strategies to avoid getting steamrolled by larger voting blocks.
That's a rather gross oversimplification. What about the unification of the two major parties to lock third parties out of the process? There are other factors.
But what fucking good does sitting out do? It doesn't convince the body public that elections are corrupt; rather, it just is taken as yet another sign that Generation Whichever is made up of apathetic losers with no sense of civic duty, and the folks who don't sit out go to decide your future for you. Hell, register and then vote Libertarian -- it makes a statement that you don't like either major party, and (at least as importantly) that you actually give a shit, and aren't sitting out on account of pure apathy.
There you have another fallacy, your worst to date. Just because I do not vote, that does NOT MEAN that I 'sit out' of the process entirely. Activism can take many forms, and voting is NOT REALLY DOING ANYTHING. The choice has already been made. You are just helping to legitimize it. You are facilitating the system. If voter turnout drops to 1% or less, the system WILL change. Don't prop up the evil we have. Work to change it.
I understand your point, but I think you're wrong. The charade of the voting system can't be maintained without your help. It is not a charade worth continuing. Therefore, you should not support it. I respect your right to do so, but you will not convince me, under current conditions, to do so.
I haven't voted for evil since I became aware of the problem. My integrity is fine.
you are still acting like republicans and democrats aren't controlled by the same people. damn, dude. just damn.
You want excellent free service and support while also paying extremely cheap prices for your computer. You are stupid. If you want super-duper support, PAY FOR IT. Additionally, I have many years of in-field support experience. I have spoken to Dell support many, many times. Sometimes I've had bad experiences. Sometimes I've had great experiences. It depends on who you happen to get. Of course, the enterprise support is typically awesome. That's 'cause it costs enough to allow for the hiring and keeping of quality, knowledgeable employees.
Not really an option.
Funny. You seem to directly contradict this statement later in your post. It certainly IS an option.
Unfortunately, not voting at all (your suggestion) is the logical conclusion of the "existing, non-working, path". Voter turnout is horrid. Making it worse won't help at all. Because you can be certain that even if you convince the American public not to vote, the politicians, and their campaign workers will vote. Forgot about them didn't you?
They'll have plenty of trouble explaining how a President got elected when nobody voted for him or her. I realize that power vacuums get filled. I also realize that things will have to become much more blatant for the average person to notice. Participating in the sham of our electoral process only hurts people. When they're trying to convince you on Fox News that it's wonderful that the President was elected by 501 votes to the challenger's 500 things will get very interesting.