"Vote. You have no excuse. Vote for a better tomorrow" it says. Logic is solid.

a reply to: unity100

I dont agree. Not even a little bit.

If voting was so important more people would vote. There is no point in voting in a representative democracy. NONE.

You people want others to be motivated and not disillusioned? Advocate for a direct democracy. IF we are not ready for that bring back the monarchy and end this facade.

What is the point when you have people like Ron Paul that actually did win an election but was utterly removed from all outlets and records that he didnt even get an honorable mention. I dont care for those arguments that he didnt win...the guy had people on both sides of the isle behind him in insane numbers. You would be hard pressed to find a place where Ron Paul people didnt have a voice.

I will vote when it matters. Not when people who ultimately decide who our leader is do so based on their own personal or corrupted philosophy or keeping in favor with the political class.You mean to tell me that I should give validity to a system that is a complete lie?

NO. Its not valid and I will not pretend to give it my support. Its a lie. It should be treated as such. Everyone that talks mess about the government is full of it if they then validate the very system they says is rigged or futile.

If no one voted the important issue of WHY would come to light. Now, "oh voting works, look how many people vote. What are they not important to you?"

When you start making sense I will start listening. When you start to take us into consideration I will participate. Until then, validate yourself as you do anyways. Never again.

chavez and his movement did it in venezuela - EXACT same establishment organized in exact same fashion as the one in usa, even FUNDED and organized by the one in usa. to the extent of multiple coup attempts being organized by cia to protect them.

and yet, they were able to change things: forced oil companies to actually pay taxes, negated the effect of privately held media on elections and many more.

even as of now the mass media in venezuela is ~90% privately owned, all of them are owned by rich businessmen who back the corporatist candidate. and yet people's movement in venezuela has won the last elections too, and still pushing for changes.

same has been repeated elsewhere around south america.

same in many places in europe - people were able to push parties that were totally put down by corporate establishment.

so it can be done.

a reply to: unity100

They also had an armed populace that WAS willing to start killing people if the WELL COUNTED voteS didnt get counted well.

He also was in bed with plenty of revolutionary / criminal groups. He wasnt exactly counter to establishment. He just shifted who gets shafted.

a reply to: unity100

Yes, I read the article.

Even if no one voted for them, they would still claim legitimacy. Even if it was a totally fascist system with no elections, they would STILL claim legitimacy, and then come and bash your head in.

They aren’t going to stop and think or change their behavior if you don’t vote. They don’t care whether you do not vote as a ‘reaction’ to the system. They are fine with that. Actually, they WOULD want you to act that way so they could just keep doing what they are doing.

That's the authors opinion, not a fact. It was also good logic based on your opinion. I tend to disagree with the statement because if the entire nation quit voting knowing it's a sham. There would be a revolution against the corrupt system to change...imho.

what does 'causing an uproar nationwide' have to do with voting.

Well if the entire nation was protesting against voting as a way to elect officials because it's corrupt. I'd say that would be a more plausible way of change.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: unity100

They also had an armed populace that WAS willing to start killing people if the WELL COUNTED voteS didnt get counted well.

thats incorrect - last elections in venezuela was the one most monitored by international organizations, and broke a record in the number of organizations monitoring an election. even jimmy carter's foundation has declared the elections had been spotless.

as for 'armed populace' -> it came to being AFTER the rich businessmen in venezuela were not able to take power through elections or coups, and started resorting to direct violence by killing union leaders and students.

originally posted by: tadaman
He also was in bed with plenty of revolutionary / criminal groups. He wasnt exactly counter to establishment. He just shifted who gets shafted.

who determines 'criminal' -> cia is still in direct relations with many drug lords in south america, and since the past few years, doesnt even feel the need to hide.

however, your argument is not valid in this case - all of these concepts you speak of, are much after podemos movement in venezuela won elections and forced oil corporations to pay taxes.

incidentally, the exact moment when western governments and corporate media declared chavez a 'dictator', happens to coincide with oil companies being forced to pay taxes.

but again - agree or disagree with chavez, he and his movement IS a good example on how people's movements can work.

yes, you may have to resort to violence when attacked, you may have to defend yourself with firearms, you may have to do whatever you need to do at various points - but it proves that effecting change is possible through voting.

originally posted by: amicktd
Well if the entire nation was protesting against voting as a way to elect officials because it's corrupt. I'd say that would be a more plausible way of change.

are you aware that you are saying that the people who did not have any hesitations in outright cheating in elections through the privately owned, no-bid-contracted, no-accountability electronic election machines, are going to give two shizz about 'how many people quit voting'?

Oh come on, We all know voting has absolutely nothing to do with chosing a government.

House of senate/House of Commons are both the same and operate the same way. Elect a leader of the party. So that if the party does something people don't like the leader gets blamed even tho he really did nothing at all. Hes just a spokesperson.

So tell me again, How does picking a face help with salvaging a dying economy and a distrustful population by electing some dude?

It's not a dictatorship so what ever these presidents say is all just suggestions really. Because he has no voting power himself.
Obama can't do crap about the rising taxs and loss of freedom of rights ect. It's the senate and congree that both together are destroying society from the inside out. You can't exactly pick a congressmen because theres only ever 1 choice to vote for them and some congress got their job without an election. They just sit there, taking up space and we can't do anything to remove them for it.

Why vote. When all this garbage really makes it useless. Is voting like some sort of bragging rights? Like saying oh these guys won so now they have the *Most say* in what's going to happen but they don't have absolute rule to change laws or make any effective changes what so ever.

Basically the economy and politics is set up the way it is to resemble an insain person so that the populations become insain as well.

It's a pretty effective tool at enslaving the masses in debt will keeping all your buddies clear from trouble.... assuming your on the polical end and not the dying end like the average joe.

I had been voting since 1988. Not one person I ever voted for got into office or even got close. In all those years, not one.

I figure my time can be wasted on better things that voting for someone who is never going to get close to winning.

a reply to: unity100

Like I said, the votes were well counted. Its not like Chavez could lose tens of thousands of votes by act of "negligence" without people starting to die because of it. That was what made those votes be counted. Not the international organizations.

You need to keep up with a political system you use as an example. He supported paramilitary criminal organizations. Without muscle his "vote" would be useless since the acting government would simply kill off opposition until their numbers were favorable. When a civil war is threatened and you mean it, you start to have government taking into account what the people with guns want.

Just saying.

Also, drug running, prostitution and black market sales kind of constitute them being criminal organizations. Having armed thugs who patrol your turf instead of police make them criminal groups.

EDIT TO ADD:
The only thing valid about voting is that you think it is valid. If the will of the people was even remotely listened to you could simply read the writing on the wall and predict the outcome of elections. We vote because its a system of removing doubt as to why the people want "A" but always get "B". "I guess people voted for this". When in reality "No one voted for this", but hey there was a process with official numbers, and those ARE official.

a reply to: unity100

Am I speaking a foreign language? What would a no-accountability electronic election machine do if everyone knew nobody voted?

Let me thwart and negate each and every excuse you have for not voting, and then we will talk – lets start with the most common excuse:
“But it doesn’t change anything”

If it didn’t change anything, they wouldn’t be doing endless propaganda from privately owned media to make people vote the way they want.

It does.
..........

This is the poorest logic I've seen in years.
1. It's vague and a false premise. They propose that voting changes things but how and what it changes are never specified. They then proceed to say why you should vote without backing up their claim.

2. Their causal logic is this quote is staggeringly awful

Because it(voting)changes things [assumed, not proven] they have to do this propaganda, they have to lie and mislead people, confuse people and herd them the way they want. [Who the hell is they in this context?]

The only reason why voting is not changing things is because this propaganda to make people vote against people’s own interests, is successful.

Let me get their bozo logic straight. 1.Voting changes things 2. causes somebody to use propoganda 3. voting doesn't change things because of propaganda alters the voters vote. 4. get out and vote.

This is reminiscent of the underpants gnomes money scheme in South park. It's missing a step or two between step 3 and 4.


In fact every argument in this article when scrutinized makes the case for in fact NOT voting. This entire article is the same tripe the braindead zombie followers NEED you to believe. They want everybody else to LEGITIMIZE their crimes, schemes, goofs and misconduct. If you vote, you are by participation and association guilty of the committing the crimes of the government done in your name. After all, you voted xyz politician in, didn't you? Well but, but, but you might be saying. The system is corrupt to the core and rigged for the extremely wealthy. The only fix is to throw it all out and start over.


“If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it.”


― Mark Twain

"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."

Emma Goldman

Wow you people really are off base - and for a very good reason:

You expect voting to change things RIGHT away, RIGHT now, after 200 years of neglect, inattention, evasion.

for ~200 years political system has been left to the establishment to play with, and then you want things to change in just a few years.

that wont happen.

this thing is like the part of a wave in the ocean - its a tiny bit of the wave, but for a wave to be and ACT as a wave, it must be there.

activism, protests, organizing etc are all parts of the same wave.

OF course you have voted for ten or more elections, and your candidate got nowhere near the office - the establishment is spending TRILLIONS of dollars every year for propaganda and brainwashing through private media. the size of this industry is trillions of dollars.

of course it will require effort and it will require time to do any change through voting - BECAUSE the establishment is defending the base they got there.

But you cant win without attacking. And that's exactly what the article is about - attacking. From all fronts.

a reply to: yeahright

Joke





-me


What?

I've considered many of my fellow citizens as pretty pathetic, just because of the low voter turn out for decades now. I'm almost...almost, in favor of making it a requirement, like paying taxes. You don't vote, you get a small fine.

And make write-in candidates available as well. The past decade I have noticed that option has disappeared.

If you don't vote, you have no right to complain. At least do your part. It's not that time consuming.

originally posted by: TDawgRex
I've considered many of my fellow citizens as pretty pathetic, just because of the low voter turn out for decades now. I'm almost...almost, in favor of making it a requirement, like paying taxes. You don't vote, you get a small fine.

other countries did it. doesnt work. people just dont vote, dont pay fines. and you cant prosecute them because there is a lot.

but if it is a requirement for something that they have to do, it may be different.

a reply to: TDawgRex

Actually no I do have a right to complain..

I didn't vote these idiots in... so ya.. it was the voter who didn't research their next top model... I meant candidate... So we have the mess we are in today because You voted for them, not me...

a reply to: unity100

If it didn’t change anything, they wouldn’t be doing endless propaganda from privately owned media to make people vote the way they want.

1. Depends on how the system is controlled and how much of it is controlled.
2. Ever heard of Machiavellian tactics?

The only reason why voting is not changing things is because this propaganda to make people vote against people’s own interests, is successful.

No, the only reason why voting is not changing things is because their is no difference on who you vote for.

Using the logic that vote matters than why is it that regardless which party is in control the following things always happens.

1. Gov't keeps getting bigger

2. Taxes never significantly get cut.

3. Corportions and Lobbyist clients are typically on the winning side. Even when they lose they win (Bailouts)?

4. The same issues that are plaguing us today have existed for numerous decades through the hands of both parties.

In addition, why would corporations and lobbyist allow our vote to matter when it legally doesn't have to? They have billions invested do you think they want to let you decide who controls things.

In order to negate your vote legally all that needs to be done is the following.
1. Raise how much money it takes to run for office. This makes it harder to not take their favours. Notice corporations successfully removed any caps from campaign donations.

2. Setup a front that DECIDES WHO you realistically get to vote from: Corporations give millions to both the DNC and the RNC to make sure their candidate is in the pool of allowable candidates to be picked from.

3. Control the media: The same board of directors of the corporations and lobbyist also have major ownership of the media itself is in particularly the news . They control the candidates image . The internet was the only media that they didn't control , but with undoing net neutrality they got that control back.

Basically they setup a system that if you want to run for office YOU NEED them before you even get of the ground. Its all legal and its all cost of doing business, because in the end they get billion dollar quarter profits.

If billions are spent yearly on lobbying and it works why would your vote matter?

Did people vote to not be informed if they are eating GMO products?
Did people vote to give bailout so corporate CEO can get their bonus?
Did people vote to undo net neutrality?

originally posted by: interupt42

..........

you described the METHODS that the establishment controls democratic process. it is accurate.

but, case in point is, people of venezuela succeeded in beating that system despite greater odds than people of usa.

at least there isnt any external country staging coups in usa or assassinating people when someone who they dont like gets elected.

in that, us people have the upper hand.

how did people in venezuela succeed?

grassroots organization. mouth to mouth, door to door activism. power of internet.

sure, chavez was rather famous before the elections too, but in the end he didnt win as a single person, but the leader of a movement called podemos.

american people can do the same. they did it for other things before, like civil rights.

a reply to: ThichHeaded

I always vote, and no, I didn't vote for all of the current crop of idiots we have in DC, though I did vote for the awesome Governor that my State has and many others within my State as well.

So I believe that I have a right to complain...about any issue and any political side.

People I know that don't vote and yet complain hold no water with me. I'll tell them to go have their bratty tantrum elsewhere. Useless eaters and oxygen thieves as far as I'm concerned. Regardless of which side they identify with.

This election cycle, I'll be voting (R), (D) and (I) respectively. I research my candidates and I have yet to find one I totally agree with, but I do try to pick the ones who I can vet and see their records and agree with mostly. For example, I don't like what my Senator does on a National level, but he has done very well by the city I live in and the State and he has a pretty competent staff working for him as well. He'll be getting my vote.