It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why vote? It's illogical.

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   
No election has ever been decided by a single vote. So what does your vote matter? Why vote? You're not going to change, or even influence the election. Your vote will be marginalized to the point of not mattering at all.

So why vote?




posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


I was talking to my husband last night about a possible revolution (warrenb's thread about revolution meter) and who exactly would the revolution focus on. He believes that the only way to take back our country is through the ballot box. No matter how many stupid laws are passed, we can change them through the ballot box.

I don't know. To me, it seems a bit late for that.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Hazelnut
 


Thanks for the reply.

I think it's legitimate to change things through the vote -- it's probably the best way to do it too, because it doesn't involve violence and death.

But I can't for the life of me understand why I vote. My vote really doesn't matter. It's like throwing a grain of sand onto the beach and expecting the beach to look different. It doesn't change anything.

Sooo.. why vote?



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kaytagg
No election has ever been decided by a single vote


I wondered if that was really true, here is a supposed case where it was.

electionupdates.caltech.edu...

Personally I think that every vote counts, and while one persons vote isn't often a big deal, if everyone felt like that, or everyone who might vote for an outside party, nothing would ever get done.

Also, you can brag about having a higher IQ if you vote, thanks to research by the Medical Research Council:



People with a higher intelligence in childhood were more likely to vote as adults, and were more likely to vote for the Green Party and Liberal Democrats in a general election, researchers have found.


www.mrc.ac.uk...



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


You're welcome.


I know how you feel because I share your frustration. Considering how electronic voting (Diebold) machines are not infallible, no paper votes to confirm the findings, and disputed results adds fuel to the fire of my insecurity. If only I weren't such a skeptic!



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


Voting down party lines is what is illogical. The sham will continue untill the people reveal the scam by voting a third party candidate in, and see if TPTB put their own guy in regardless of a clear cut majority in favor of someone they don't want.

There's no need to push for armed revolution like some here think. The people in power will make their mistake which will galvanize the people into that direction, and it will get ugly. The unfortunate thing in conflict is that to keep the ethical upper hand you must allow your enemy to make the first move, but be prepared to mount an immediate and devastating action against that move.

For now my push is to convince people to vote all incumbents out of office, vote for a candidate that belongs to neither the Republican nor Democrat parties, and be prepared for violent conflict. In being prepared, I mean be armed, be ready, but don't go off half cocked and start the conflict.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
I'm right there with ya' OP, except I don't believe in voting for the President. I strongly believe in actively voting in your local, regional and state elections, because really the people we vote into office locally are there to represent our way of thinking, and how we want things done. They are the ones who sign/create bills, and vote for or against new legislation. That is how our Govt' is set up. You elect locally who you feel is the best candidate to represent you. If only more people did we'd have a lot less crooks, and a lot more fresh faces in Govt'.

Everyone needs to get active locally in 2010 if we want real "change"!

[edit on 28-8-2009 by KnoxMSP]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by KnoxMSP
 


Could not agree with you more. Local elections influence our lives more than presidential elections, yet presidential elections have the highest turn out rate, while local elections have the lowest turn out rate.

George Carlin use to say "When you're born into this world, you get a free ticket to the freak show; when you're born in America, you get a front row seat."



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


In a way you're right. If 5,000 people have already gone to the polls your presence there is in a way, pointless. The exception would be if you are voting for someone who is getting a small number of votes. Then you are pushing up their percentage up higher. So if someone is getting 1 vote in a million and you add one vote, their support has just doubled due to your vote.

In any case, you are not supposed to go to vote to change the outcome. Rather, you are supposed to vote because that is the designated way of participating in Democracy. You are supposed to go to the polls and express who will do the best job at running things regardless of who you think can win. The whole point of going to the polls is participation and expression rather than to single-handedly make a decision.

One person making decisions is tyranny. If you're one vote is the one that changes the outcome of the election I'm not impressed and anyone who celebrates that kind of victory is missing the whole point.

If your tiny portion of participation is not enough for you, don't bother doing your share. Don't worry, the others that are left will make your share of the decision-making process for you. So my advice if you think an equal share of power isn't enough for you then stay home and give away your tiny bit of power to the remaining people.

I think of voting as a transfer of power more than an exercise of power. Many times, voting is used to delegate your power to another person. If someone votes for Obama, they are transferring their 30 millionth of their executive branch powers to Obama.

This is why if the options are:
1. Evil Guy
2. Lesser Evil Guy
3. Good guy who will never win

My vote still goes to the good guy because I view it has having transferred power to the good guy instead of the lesser evil. While its true that Ron Paul and John McCain don't have as much power as Obama, they still got a boost in political power as a result of the election. Ron Paul has gained an enormous following due to his presidential run even though he didn't win the election. And a following translates to power and leadership ability.

Today's voter has a ridiculous reasoning process when it comes to voting. They think... person A is not popular and has no chance therefore he does not get my vote. Person B has a better chance so I will vote for them. That is more or less of the opposite of common sense. The less of a chance someone has of winning, the more valuable your vote is to them. In addition, voting for someone only if they are popular makes turns the election from a credentials contest vote into a popularity contest circus. Today we don't have votes on credentials but rather we have popularity circuses... how ridiculous!



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by dugganj83

Originally posted by Kaytagg
while one persons vote isn't often a big deal, if everyone felt like that, or everyone who might vote for an outside party, nothing would ever get done.


This is my dilemma. My vote doesn't affect whether or not other people show up to the polls. My vote also wont sway an election (unless I was allowed to vote in the election you cited. And that's an anomaly, as its only happened one time out of hundreds of thousands of election. But it goes to prove that no matter how unlikely, it's possible).

Consider these two points:
A: My voting wont affect who shows up at the polls.
B: My vote wont change the election.

then what is the point of voting? I don't think there is any.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kaytagg
No election has ever been decided by a single vote. So what does your vote matter? Why vote? You're not going to change, or even influence the election. Your vote will be marginalized to the point of not mattering at all.

So why vote?


No recycling campaign has ever made a difference by a single can. So what does your can matter? Why recycle? You're not going to change, or even influence the environment. Your can will be marginalized to the point of not mattering at all.

So why recycle?



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
No war has ever been won by a single military member. So what does your service matter? Why enlist? You're not going to change, or even influence the war. Your actions will be marginalized to the point of not mattering at all.

So why join the military?



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


If someone votes for Obama, they are transferring their 30 millionth of their executive branch powers to Obama.

That's an interesting way of thinking about it. I appreciate that thought.

But consider this: It is a winner take all game. So by the end of the election, if I voted for Nader and lost, the 30 millionth of my individual executive branch power STILL goes to Obama -- even if I didn't vote for Obama.

I don't think that by not voting it means I'm giving my decision making power to someone else. Roughly half of all people who participate in elections lose, and because of the winner-take-all rule, the result says that they might as well have not even showed up at all -- because their candidate, in the end, receives zero executive branch powers. Which leads me to wonder why I vote at all, other than for symbolic reasons.


Today's voter has a ridiculous reasoning process when it comes to voting. They think... person A is not popular and has no chance therefore he does not get my vote. Person B has a better chance so I will vote for them. That is more or less of the opposite of common sense. The less of a chance someone has of winning, the more valuable your vote is to them.


I could not agree more. I voted for Nader because I hoped it would help shine a spot light on his policies. As it turns out, it didn't (
), but I sort of like the ritual of voting anyways, so I do it (strangely).

But the logic behind the whole process tells me that it's pointless to do (see my above post for why). I wonder if anyone else feels this way.

[edit on 28-8-2009 by Kaytagg]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Follow The TCP Stream
No war has ever been won by a single military member. So what does your service matter? Why enlist? You're not going to change, or even influence the war. Your actions will be marginalized to the point of not mattering at all.

So why join the military?


If I have an ant infestation, can I fix it by killing a single ant from the colony (besides the queen)?

The only reason armies work well is because of numbers -- precisely because they can sacrifice a man (or even thousands of men) and not have it change the outcome of the campaign. The goal of a large military force is to ensure that 1 man doesn't matter.

That's mostly why I don't enlist. I also don't like being on the bottom of the chain of command, and I don't want to risk dieing or becoming permanently injured.

[edit on 28-8-2009 by Kaytagg]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   
The first reason to vote is because you have a vote.

In our current system of political control, you're vote, any single vote, is subject to a wide range of 'control' that the voter has no influence on.

Hence, we really aren't getting a vote.

I would agree that in this environment, voting is marginalized.

Many people seem oblivious to the fact that the 'candidates' are pre-selected by the party 'delegates' - NOT US.

Further, many are blissfully unaware of the impact of the electoral college (not to mention the Supreme Court) on exactly who you GET to vote for.

A write-in option should be constitutionally mandated.

Damn the expense and effort. These are supposed to be our votes! The voices of the citizens, NOT THE PARTY!

Just like they are supposed to be OUR representatives to government... instead the PARTY has them set up to be the government's representatives to us!


However the Democrat-Republican cabal has monopolized the process and seem willing to violate the constitution to keep it that way.

[edit on 28-8-2009 by Maxmars]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
From what I have gathered we have no guaranteed right to vote in a Presidential election so why do we even bother? The final decision comes down to the electoral college, who may or may not vote along with their constituents.

[edit on 28-8-2009 by KnoxMSP]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kaytagg

Originally posted by Follow The TCP Stream
No war has ever been won by a single military member. So what does your service matter? Why enlist? You're not going to change, or even influence the war. Your actions will be marginalized to the point of not mattering at all.

So why join the military?


If I have an ant infestation, can I fix it by killing a single ant from the colony (besides the queen)?

The only reason armies work well is because of numbers -


Yet, you can't seem to possibly relate the same concept to voting, or even... recycling?

Society. Is. Not. You. Society. Is. Us.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
The Kennedy/Nixon & the Bush/Gore elections were supremely close. They could have gone either way if Nixon had them recount Ill. (Chicago mob).

If you control the Senate you have a good chance to control the power.
using electoral-vote.com... as a baseline

Tough races
Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio

Easy for Dems
Arkansas, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Maryland,
New York, New York , North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont,
Washington, Wisconsin

Easy for Reps
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah

Get some non-politicians to run on the peoples ticket & term limits. You would see blood running in the streets as the dems & reps joined together.
It would not be hard to win 20 races & control 1/5 if the Senate. What if all were won (1/3)? Don't just vote. Fight for the win.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Ballots and voting are worth something, but the best solution is to create local citizen grand juries and to take back the local politics. citizengrandjury.com... are a step in the right direction.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join