Did you vote in the last elections?

What? that it is, in fact, unrepresentative?

I think that I understand that better than most, who are trapped into thinking that because it is called 'representative', that it actually represents what they want.

How many voters voted for Bush but don't support the war in Iraq? Can you pretend that the answer is 'none'? If I voted for Bush, but didn't want war, how is that representing me?

If I believe a man's sex life is his own business, how do I vote for someone who withdraws from a contest because of the prurient nature of the press, and their attitude to an old affair?



... but you appear to have missed the point completely, the ability to complain is absolutely required if anything is to be changed.

As an aside - what would happen if no-one voted in the next presidential election?

I voted 3 times
Once for myself, then I helped my Grandparents Vote.

i was too young to vote last time.

My first voting election, I voted for Clinton.

Then I grew up and realized what a mistake that was.

I agree with this 100%.

I do not feel compelled to vote for anyone that represents anything less than my own ideals. To date, not one candidate has come even remotely close. I will not be forced to accept second-best or support the candidate that offers 'the-best-all-round-deal' - when it comes to governing a country, this leaves a pretty wide margin for maneuver.

both you and spheric have good points that are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Yes, representation is essentially a sham, but yes, people should still vote, if for no other reason than to hold the sham's feet to the fire.



but I also agree that the absurd litmus of voting at all before the right to complain is unduly restrictive. Everyone has the right to complain, regardless.

You do realize that the ONLY way to ever achieve this is to run for office yourself, right?

If everyone required 100% representation of their views before voting, it is very, very unlikely that any candidate would EVER have a voter base much larger than 1.

Also, and this is where I realize American are much more up the creek than most Europeans, 90% of politics here are done by *parties*, not elected individuals. And that's primarily what you vote for, at least in Germany.

And seeing the tremendous amounts of discussion and fighting within and between parties over nearly every decision: my views are in there somewhere, getting (re-)presented.

They may not prevail, but that is not the point.

I stand by my statements from above.

I'm pretty sure that if enough people in the next US presidential elections got off their asses and voted in protest, for a party they may not agree with entirely, but just to make a statement to the best of their ability, it would shake things up considerably.

You bet Republicrats would flip if 40% of popular vote went to fringe parties.

-s*

Voted in every major election.

But I have to admit that, other than Clinton, I've picked the loser in almost every race. True for most of the candidates and Propositions out here in CA. Kinda frustrating. Sometimes I feel like a political constituent of one.

Yeah, Plato had it right when he said that people should strive for leadership (public office) not because of the prestige or money but because you believe that you're the only one qualified.

Civic obligation, man. If you don't like it you DO have the power to run for office and try to change it.

And if you don't, you can't really complain to others about your own ennui, now, can you?

-s*

Right. But you are allowed to bitch about other stuff then because you voted (presumably for yourself).

I agree to a certain point. I'm just tired of voting against things.

I've decided I don't want to vote defensively or take the 'lesser-of-two-evils' route anymore. It's just made me more cynical every time I left the voting booth. I only want to vote for something from now on. I want to vote for a candidate I believe in. That doesn't mean I have to agree 100% with his every stand but that I believe in his overall philosophy and approach to issues. Even if it means being on the losing end most of the time.

That's why I don't begrudge those voters who chose Nader over Gore in the last election even though it probably meant giving the election to Bush. If none of the candidates appeal to me I take a pass on that section and vote on the rest of the ballot.

As I said - the government is therefore almost completely unrepresentative.



Oh yes it is. If your views do not prevail, what was the point in voting? You have legitimised the election of someone that doesn't share your views. How is this a good thing?



Well, that has the benefit of consistency - but does that mean that you are unwilling to even consider the alternative?



And how on earth is this a good thing? Vote for someone that you disagree with as a protest against someone else that you disagree with. Hooray for voting!



And this would help precisely how?

I don't see anyone here running for office, though, and until they do, non-voters are concerns not voiced - resulting politics are YODF.

-s*

Ahh, but you see? You are voting still. Skipping one race where you have major problems with all candidates is still valid. In essence, you've voted against all of them. Too bad ballots don't have a yes box and a no box. But you did cast a ballot.

Wrong.

This is only correct within the current, stale, "vote or you're not helping" system

Issue voting (referenda) would make this problem go away. Have a vote on every issue, as it came up, with politicians representing one or other side of the issue. This may not be workable (|in fact, at the moment it certainly isn't workable for all issues, although it is for some), but it would guarantee that you got to vote for someone who represented all of your views, as you can vote on each view one at a time.

Running for office under the current system wouldn't help because, as you point out, only I would vote for me, and so I could save everyone's time and money by not standing. If only all politicians adopted this principle.

Yeah, I've heard talk of a 'None of the Above' box on every ballot. Sounds silly when you first think about it but it could be the kind of 'protest' vote that Spheric is advocating.

A vote on every issue? is that really possible? I'm not quite sure I understand how this would then mean you got to vote for someone who represented all your views. If everyone has a representative specific to their individual views, when it comes to policy making, which representative makes the decision? surely his/her decision is only going to satisfy one person.

There are so many differing political viewpoints, particularly in large countries, it's practically impossible to represent them all. That's what we have interest/pressure groups for.
You seem to be describing 'direct democracy'. I think that idea originated from the Greeks but as the population of the country grew they realised it was impossible to maintain that type of democracy.

I think voting is important. You can use it strategically even if you dislike all the parties. At the very least, you are given the chance to express your unhappiness with the party in office.

It is theoretically possible, especially as the 'net gets more and more widespread. A major difficulty is having the time to decide your opinion on everything that comes to the vote



You would vote for a view (or the person that represented that view). Thus you could vote for your view on every issue, even ifthat meant voting for a different person each time. This opens the way for 'Special Teams' where you could vote for economic specialists on economic issues, war specialists on war issues, etc., et. The interesting bit comes when all of the policies that get chosen this way have to be reconciled, because, of course, they couldn't be!

As an example, the most popular taxation regime is likely to be the 0% one, but the most popular defence is likely to be the most expensive one. This would make the whole process completely unworkable, but it would be representative.

I completely agree with christ on the ideological level, but I guess I'm either too stubborn, too optomistic or too pragmatic to give in the urge to quit the whole thing. Although that moment may not be far off at the present rate of civic decay.

Perhaps my biggest issue with "none of the above" is that is seems to stem from the misapprehension that you can remove yourself from the consequences of that vote. Most of the people who have given in to total voter apathy consider themselves removed from politics. And yet, the process which they disdain to participate in is quite literally effecting almost every aspect of their public life.

Until we can finally throw off the tyranny of states and governments altogether, passively allowing them to dictate your liberty without even the tiny or rare moral victories of opposing the worst and supporting the least offensive is rather nihilistic and self-hating.

I may not be able to realize the system that I imagine to be best with my vote, but I can certainly effect the outcomes of small yet significant civic decisions which effect me directly. Wish as much as I might, they do impact me signifcantly regardless of my desire to remain apart from the sordid process.

As long as I'm required to abide by the outcomes, I might as well cast my vote.