This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Why I Don't Vote
Submitted by The Needle Blog
Why I Don't Vote
Democracy has become a religion and anyone who criticises it is labelled a heretic.
How many times have you heard the mantra that ‘if you don’t vote, you can’t complain’? Whereas, actually, the opposite is true, ‘if you do vote, you can’t complain.’ It is no coincidence that the emergence of the philosophical concept of the ‘Social Contract’ runs parallel to democratic development in the modern era.
In political philosophy the social contract or political contract is a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. The question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is often an aspect of social contract theory.
Democracy legitimises authority.
Every time you vote you sign the Social Contract.
If you vote and your ‘favoured’ candidate does not win, you have absolutely no right to complain because by voting you have accepted the process and are bound by it’s result. It is not a coincidence either that you are asked to put a cross, also used as a replacement for a signature for a person who is illiterate and thus cannot write their name, next to your choice on the ballot.
The policy differences between different candidates are exagerated. This encourages you to sign the Social Contract by making you believe that you have a real choice. But the choice is an illusion because the true policy differences are slight and 99% of leadership is management, keeping the bureaucratic apparatus of state moving and reacting to events.
For the overwhelming majority it makes little difference which candidate wins any election. Only the wealthy and powerful who can expect some kind of reward, in the form of patronage or largesse, Government contracts etc, for their financial, political, and media support have a dog in the fight.
Your role, by voting, is to legitimise this corruption.
Democracy encourages short-termism. Instead of our leaders planning for a sustainable future they pander to a selfish and fickle electorate who only want jam today and who will punish any politician at the polls who does not give it to them. As a consequence the farsighted, fairminded and responsible leadership that the world needs in the 21st century, is completely absent, made obselete by an evolutionary process which rewards the shortsighted, corrupt, ambitious, greedy, and vain.
This is a genuine story, In 1974 in the UK there were two general election. The first in February was inconclusive and it led to another in October. In the run up to this second election the leaders of all the main political parties made the most extraordinary undeliverable promises to buy the votes of the British electorate.
I was six years old, and attending my local infants school, when the teaching staff there taught me one of the most important lessons I’ve ever learned. They decided to hold their own school election at a special assembly at which all the parents were invited to attend, though only the children would vote. Before the assembly they took myself and a young girl into separate classrooms, to the young girl they explained the needs of the school and what changes would be beneficial to the pupils education,. To me they just gave one simple instruction “Just get elected.”
The young girl addressed the children, parents, and teachers and made a very sensible address, “more books, longer school hours, and a healthy diet”.
I, on the otherhand, decided to stand on a very simple platform of “Chips (fries) everyday, and longer breaktimes.”
The result will come as no surprise, I won by a landslide. As I grew older and began to reflect more on this the lesson became clearer. The electorate will always vote for what they want, rather than what they need. The electorate are no better than a cohort of infant school children.
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947
Aristotle would have disagreed with Winston Churchill. Aristotle thought that democracy was a perverted form of Government which served the indignant (or capricious) mob at the expense of the broader interests of the state and it’s citizens.
Voting for Libertarianism is oxymoronic. You can not vote for your freedom because the ballot is a signed contract which binds you to a democratic system specifically designed to defraud you of any choice. Only by not voting can you opt out. This does not mean that you will not be subject to the tyranny of the majority but you will be free.
»
- 26400 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Of course, we all know that there's no deception, greed etc occurring from the "Right."
As long as we continue to resort to childish labels we'll continue to stagnate as a species.
Were any of those lefty, parasitic, raggedy assed slackers planning on voting anyway?
Or, are they so stoned they'e unable to find their way to the polling station.
If this person had his/her way I'm sure that they'd be denied... only fascists should be allowed to vote, don'tcha know...
Only producers should be allowed to vote.
What about directors? And grips? And the guys who man the honey buciets?
Only whores should be allowed to vote, at least they know which politicians have balls.
Baaaaa. Baaaaaaaaaaaa. Baaaaaaaaaaa....................
Democracy=mob rule
Democracy is Jerry Sandusky, a catholic priest, and an impressionable young boy voting on who is allowed to touch the young boy.
Do you think Jerry's cell-mate likes to sandusky, or be sanduskied?
HAHAHAH Pitcher or catcher? Potato/Potahto
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
That tired old metaphor is incomplete; constitutions ostensibly legitimize the rights/freedoms of both the sheep and the wolves, because if there were two sheep and only one wolf...
Try again.
I vote often.Years ago i did vote with my foot going thru "departure"gate.Since then i often vote in nearest coin shop.
They're not the ones in charge.
Just vote for independents, third party, no more two-party "lesser of two evils". The game is rigged at the party/primary level, that is where the fix is put in.
Completely agreed. They don't need to manipulate the vote. All they need to do is limit the options.
But with voting fraud and electronic vote counting, don't you just think they will flip the votes as needed. Again, to reference the article, to vote is to consent to the system. I don't consent to this Federale system anymore.
Sigh, yes, people STILL don't get it that it's THE SYSTEM! There's too much power concentrated there, and as populations increase and natural resources decrease things will only get worse.
Speaking of vote-flipping, I was warning all the folks who were running around crying for "paper trails" that if those whom they feared were flipping votes then why couldn't they tell you -via paper trails- that your vote was what you voted AND THEN flip the vote behind the scenes? Many people who were thinking they were smart were pushing for this (I, on the other hand, was pushing to abolish the electronic voting altogether- local county did drop it).
The other day it struck me (as I was trying to avoid yet another fucking political ad on the radio) that this is just a continuation of High School popularity contests, with all the rationale that that contains.
This video really tells the story. The beginning has the election results being reported early. Second part details testimony of a electronic voting maching company employee who was asked to program the machine to flip vote. The final piece is the FoxNews story that shows how easy it is to hack the fucking machines. Well worth the 5:34 watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ICBmGpS-bI&feature=plcp
When the code isn't owned by the public... I believe that Australia's voting code is public. STILL, it would be an issue of having proper audits in place.
Even with "legitimate" voting we're looking at nothing more than popularity contests. The REAL programming corruption lies much deeper than just voting machines:
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country"
- Edward Bernays
Right--and if I had to live within the boundaries of what took place in my High School years, I would have killed those people by now.
"They don't need to manipulate the vote. All they need to do is limit the options."
Very well put.
Touchée...ZH discussess the pure and impure forms of government the greeks understood very well...The greeks knew that it was always a circularity, nothing static: From a good king to a tyrant, the tyrant would be deposed by the good nobles (artistocrats), whose descendants would get corrupted, becoming oligarchs. The people would rebel and demand democracy, but the democracy would turn into a demagogy. A good leader, would put an end to it, after the decadence and he would become the good king....
Democracy is simply an abuse of statistics, Borges once said.
I like the reference to the Greeks. In school we always focused on the Melian dialogue footnote of Thucydidies' History, and that never made sense to me. Why is the focus on the "power of the strong" speech when a much more interesting question was "Hey Athens, how the fuck did you manage to lose a war in which you had nearly every starting advantage?"
Well then you read all of Thucydidies' History and the answer is obvious: the democracy/oligarchy cycle of governing and the short-term profiteering it incentivizes loses the war.
But God forbid "Political Science" examine the merits or sustainability of our sacred democratic governments. Nope, no time, way too busy pushing everyone to "rock-the-vote!"
ALL wars are absolutely/over resources. With few exceptions, all organized people seek to expand; it then is only a matter of time before such expansion ceases. And when expansion ceases is when POWER really goes nutty, as it senses its loss of control (and, like all those in power, they feel that they are the anointed/chosen ones and are "doing God's work," in which case those who go against them [and their entitlements] are defying "God- this enables them to draw the focus away from their pilfering/corruption and on to those who cry fowl).
I will vote for myself, the best kind of throw-away vote
DEATH TO DEMOCRACY!
DEATH TO AMERICA!
Politic is a religion not democracy....
Here y'all take a hit of this hopium pipe and vote one of the clowns in office, then bend over and grab ankles.
Vote with your money...trade!!!
http://govttrader.blogspot.com/
Welcome to the New Dark Ages.
Vote for a 3rd party candidate. Vote for who you WANT, not for a popular choice against who you hate. If more people did this we might actually have an election worth paying attention to.
Also 3rd party supporters need to lose their negative attitudes.
Saying stuff like "I know s/he can't win but I'm voting for________" - It doesn't help!
Srry gbresnahan the electoral college will make sure that only minions of the oligarchy prevail. Wish it werent so
but i believe what i see not what hear so I do vote with my dollars and trade as so eloquently stated by someone earlier
Trade to make money. The trader who trades to make a political statement has a fool for a pundit.
:D
+
I am not so sanguine to think the masses can be changed to become rational libertarians, any more than one could regulate any social behavior such as drugs, sex, religion or watching the kardashians. Therefore, I agree, it is probably not worth voting at all. The better approach is to understand the masses behavior and attempt to front run it and profit from it.
Until society is too fucked to function. Then what?
Rinse, wash, repeat... been going on thousands of years...
Looks like the people of NJ are in the washing stage. With one of the highest tax rates in the country, their big government overlords are NOt providing them with their needs in gas and food and electricity. Sad news is that the masses will just say the state government just didn't have enough power and money. Sighhhhh
Exactly why I'm moving back.
Here's what society is built upon:
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country"
- Edward Bernays
"We must find new lands from which we can easily obtain raw materials and at the same time exploit the cheap slave labor that is available from the natives of the colonies.
The colonies would also provide a dumping ground for the surplus goods produced in our factories."
- Cecil Rhodes, 1853-1902, British imperialist who founded Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe)
People need to ask how it came to be that such people could become so prominent.
As soon as you believe that you are smarter/more intelligent is when you create justifications for why you can dictate what others should do. Intelligence is merely an increased level of deception...
I agree; I have long since given up on a libertarian awakening even though a good deal of the apolitical aquaintences of mine realize they do have libertarian tendencies when forced to examine their views. Just as many it seems, have authoritarian tendencies; this is seen in the proliferation of petty tyrants at work, in HOA boards, most local government types, and law enforcers.
If I voted, I would vote for the Kenyan because I want this whole fucking system to come to a crash so I can kill the sons-of-bitches who at present I must avoid or cooperate with. I am naturally a calm and nonviolent type, preferring to avoid conflict or violence until one attempts to constrain my non-aggressive actions. However, messing with my freedom is the surest way to provoke a violent response, and we will not be rid of authoritarianism until it is forcibly removed from the gene pool.
The way I see it my write in vote for Ron Paul was a protest vote against the status quo. I am more concerned about the local candidates than the national level fucks. Once they reach that level most of them have been bought off.
They're all bought off, apathetic, or unqualified... none of which warrant a vote. Please do not think that local politicians are any less corrupt. Local politics are simply feeder organizations for the national level players. Some get called up to the majors.
I have no illusions that the locals are much better, but it is a heck of a lot easier to get in their face on topics.
And this is a perfect argument for why politics should ONLY be local (and optional, should a community decide it that way).
I like it, but unequivocally define 'local' please.
If the position being voted on is within the County you live in, that would be local.
Outside of your County would be State. Outside of your State would be National.
I used to think that way--protest vote, yadda, yadda, yadda. Do yourself a favor and just become free of it all--free your mind and your ass will follow. It works, it really does. We can't individually fix anything. We fix it by walking away in huge droves until legitimacy is undermined and then maybe we could just put hogtie politicians and ship them all directly off to the funny farm. Because anyone who want to lead others and lord over them is mentally ill.
Because anyone who want to lead others and lord over them is mentally ill.
I dare you to say that to your boss like you mean it.
Just text 'mo free shit' on your Obama phone...........
Blaming Democracy is skirting the real issue. The fact is, the good times have bred too many dumb fucks and they are too fucking dumb to understand the real issues. This has occurred countless times throughout history and there's no reason to believe the final outcome will be any different this time.
There are plenty of idiots in less prosperous regions... The question is how to limit their control while not giving it to tyrants. [Note: humans haven't devised the answer].
You are assuming that all races (and possible sub-races) of Homo Sapien are equal. They are not. Furthermore, "idiocy" is a relative term depending on race or sub-race.
Perhaps there isn't an answer to devise. Maybe it's just how evolution works.
you are the racism.
"We must find new lands from which we can easily obtain raw materials and at the same time exploit the cheap slave labor that is available from the natives of the colonies.
The colonies would also provide a dumping ground for the surplus goods produced in our factories."
- Cecil Rhodes, 1853-1902, British imperialist who founded Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe)
Is it the "dumb fucks" or something else that's really the problem?
Further, just what constitutes a "dumb fuck?" I'd argue that the measure that you and others is using is based on social programming, which would mean that it's not that such people are actually dumb but that they are programmed to not appear "smart" (to you). The question then would be: how would YOU program people to be?
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country"
- Edward Bernays
He who controls the voting machines decides the vote.
Same way it has always been....
Hey all you ZH readers. Try and get your message to the outside world before election day. Send them an email like this even if you think it's wasted on them:
Conservative Bush era policies of the Obama administration: The following is a partial list of some of the negative Bush era polices continued or expanded under the Obama Administration:
1) Overall military spending is significantly up since President Bush left office
2) Bank bailouts with no strings attached continued unabated, with no accountability for past actions
3) Greatly expanded war in Afghanistan, threatening war with Iran and Syria
4) Greatly expanded the unmanned drone strikes in Africa and the Middle East and denial that any civilian casualties have occurred
5) Continued and expanded warrantless wiretapping at great taxpayer expense, and refusal to reveal how many citizens are being spied upon
6) Lack of Justice Dept. or other investigations into the financial collapse, foreclosure fraud, etc.
7) Continuation of indefinite detention without trial, now including American citizens after President Obama signed the NDAA into law
8) Lack of vocal support for workers and unions in Wisconsin or Occupy Wall Street and tacit support of military-style police violence against protesters
9) Expanded oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas, support for more nuclear power plants, not supporting stricter drinking water standards, not properly funding watchdog agencies like the EPA, FDA or USDA
10) Under the Obama administration the FDA has turned its scrutiny inward to investigate FDA scientists who challenged FDA approval of medical devices
11) Prosecution of whistleblowers rather than support, including very harsh treatment of Bradley Manning
12) Federal crackdown on medical marijuana facilities contrary to state law and doctor's and scientist's recommendations
13) Extrajudicial assassinations now including American citizens
I have brought these points up to a staunch Obama supporter. In fact, many of these points were their main motivation for voting against the republicans. So when these points were brought to her attention, sepcifically the war issue, she simply stated that the war issue was not that important to her this time around. Drone bombing makes much more sense to her than full scale troop mobilization, contractors in Iraq in place of troops is A-ok, and NDAA tool is required because Al-Queda can really be anywhere and needs to be confronted. Too bad she doesn't see the disconnect about how she was bitching about Bush and those policies just four years ago. I could have fucking screamed, but instead just turned around during the discussion and said nothing more. Fuck em.
fijisailor
If the message is only anti-Obama, it is misleadingly incomplete.
Romney is just as pro-empire and all that entails as is Obama.
Romney's appeal is that he seems more honest about the impossibility of having 'guns and butter'.
Obama is more slickly deceitful about that.
But BOTH are pro-empire and will and do support all you listed above.
"The following is a partial list of some of the negative Bush era polices continued or expanded under the Obama Administration"
All together now - CHANGE! YES, WE CAN!
Morons. If that doesn't clue them in that both major parties are owned by the same sectors with only slight variation, nothing will.
I want to vote but I will not since I don't like any of the choices. I honestly wish there was a 'none of the above' choice (other than a write in).
Sorry I disagree and am voting 3rd party. Please dear God let there be Republican Senate so IF obama wins we can impeach his ass for shredding the constitution. Obviously that will bump moron into pres which will quickly be impeached as well. oh well I can dream.
hilarious...the shredding you abhor are among the few things Republicans(elected) like about Bammy. Most of the shredding is being done on a bipartisan basis in case you missed it.
You think you are permitted to 'elect' Republicans who will stand in opposition to the plan? One or two at best.
You think that's free air your breathing?
I did say dream...
I tend to use my "dreams" for more productive things, but... "dreams" are really only hopium so...
"Hope is a longing for a future condition over which you have no agency."
- Derrick Jensen (& audience)
Impeachment, bah. I'm holding out for execution on the Captial steps for treason.
Having the drone or gunship stand down in Benghazi after the target was painted culminating in the death of four Americans should be enough for that. Shredding the Constitution is just the icing on the case.
Only two people could have ordrered the strike off. That fucker knew but was too afraid the strike could go off course and hit a house killing a few innocents before the election. Better to let a few Americans die than have the PR nightmare of dead Muslim children paraded in front of the press.
That is exactly how it happened.
Now I wait for the black helicopter to appear above my house.
AARP and voting:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/09/22/the-aarps-2-8-billion-reasons-for-supporting-obamacares-cuts-to-medicare/
Unless you take up arms and try to overthrow this system, even a non vote is supporting it.
Currently, even if only one person voted out of the 300 million or so in this country, and he voted for Obama, Obama would be our president.
Sure we could have a more European system where the percentage of the vote you receive, gains you that percentage of power. But all that does is assure that nothing ever gets done.
What we need is to reduce the power of the government and decentralize, so each vote gains more power. A vote at the local level has far more power than the federal level. You have far more chance at preventing a new local tax levy than you do at preventing Obama from taking more of your paycheck.
The government has already grown to large to change, so the seccesion movement becomes the only option. Until that is viable, if you do not vote your job should be to prevent as many people that support the growth of the government from voting as possible. You should go to an inner city polling location with a gun and open fire. You don't need to shoot anyone, just disrupt and prevent their votes from counting.
Doing so will give a greater chance of voters who support shrinking the size of government to succeed. There will be a greater chance that new taxes don't pass, that new welfare services are not granted.
If you do not vote, at least make sure to take out another vote as well.
WE DON'T CARE.
A non-vote is not support. I can't change things, but I at least can stop pretending in my own mind.
Oh yeah, just stop fighting, give up, don't vote, tell other people not to vote - that will teach "them".
Reminds me when I was a kid and was constantly being picked-on by the school bully: my mom told me to give him contempt. That really worked ... not. A couple of months later I turned on him when he least expected and beat the shit out of him - never had any problems with him again.
Fight the system from the inside, fight it from the outside, leave and take your skills and wealth production abilities with you if needed, spread the word, undermine the fuckers anytime you can. The worst thing you can do to this system is to get people to start Thinking. Every Skeptic you create is one less Sheep.
As for the "Social Contract": any contract which is forced upon you, be it by force or by collusion is null and void and should not be respected. The bastards in power break it all the time and they've changed the rules of the game to force it to have the outcome they want (read about "Gerrymandering"). Anything less than full-blown proportional vote is a rigged game and no man of Honor or Reason is bound to the outcome of a rigged game.
THANK YOU!
We must eliminate voting "districts" as set up by the elected pols to keep themselves in power.
Lines should encampass ENTIRE areas (town, county, parish, city, etc.) and be proportional rather than draw lines through communities such that the guy across the street from me is in a different "district" controlled by Blue Team while I am in a "district" across the street controlled by the Red Team.
Any form of districting screws up small parties.
If a party has the support of 5% of the people in a country, should it not have 5% of the seats in any kind of legislative body? And yet that's never the case with a system having voting districts - the small parties never have the top share of the vote in any district so they never get a representative. The end result is elections where with 25-30% percent of the votes cast (with 50% voter participation that's only the votes of about 12.5% - 15% of people) one of the two top parties gets the majority of seats. This is by design.
Now lets apply Free Market theory here - look around you to the Markets out there that offer the best quality products or services at the best prices. Are they usually the ones dominated by one or two companies or the ones with tons of small and mid-sized companies, none dominating?
Methinks that any voting system that creates what's in effect a duopoly of power will give us the worst possible kind of "political services" save for a monopoly of power and that to get beter and cheaper (read: smaller) Government what we need is a voting system that promote real political competition (not just a change of flies at the top of the same old shitty parties) rather than stability (stability in power only serves to help the biggest crooks and corrupts to find the best possible party to join - or to buy - in order to enrich themselves at the cost of everybody else).
Actually, even if initially forced upon someone, the social contract can be ratified or, alternatively, contrary arguments waived through the passage of time. Apathy has a price.
A school bully can be dealt with 1 on 1. A giant, overbearing government system that is horribly complex cannot. But both are example of psychological trauma that you have to find a way to deal with. You can't fight the system from the inside, in fact, you can't fight it at all--but you can ignore it as much as possible.
Oh yeah, just stop fighting, give up, don't vote, tell other people not to vote - that will teach "them."
Reminds me when I was a kid and was constantly being picked-on by the school bully: my mom told me to give him contempt. That really worked ... not. A couple of months later I turned on him when he least expected and beat the shit out of him
From that line of reasoning, I gather you're saying that I can physically beat the shit out of a multi-trillion dollar militarized police state and the 133 million or so uninfomed/misinformed people who still turn to to vote for the "lesser of two evils," inspired to do so by a two party duopoly owned by the highest bidders?
I've already tried for many years the legal route to CHANGE. Your turn.
"Hey, Rocky! Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat! Presto! Ooooh, don't know my own strength!" - Bullwinkle
Fuck the system.
Clean bits of the system up from your lawn if somebody's dog dumps it there.
What's all this about voting or not voting somehow determining whether I can complain?
WATCH ME COMPLAIN EITHER WAY!
I'm feeling generous so I'll allow all of you to complain as well. (Actually, the first ammendment gives you that right, regardless of your voting status, but I'll take credit for it if you allow me to.)
We are a republic, not a democracy. There is (was) a big difference. The Dictator and his cronnies have all but destroyed our republic.
Yeah but he did free the slaves.
Well, the Confederate ones.
pods
I believe that if you vote R or D YOU are part of the problem. Those clowns think you think they are doing a good job. I will not give either party credibility by voting.
Vote the candidate, not the party. Even though it doesn't mean anything at the federal level since the concentration of power can render a few hawks powerless.
Hmm...
Why does Ron stay in the R?
~
I always thought that we should have a "None of the above" option like in the movie "Brewster's Millions"
If "none of the above" wins, you start over with DIFFERENT candidates.
That would be nice but the next best thing is to vote for one of the 3rd party candidates. To overcome the objection of no paper trail with electronic voting, request an absentee ballot and mail it in before the election. I wanted to vote against some of the local tax increases being proposed anyway, but even if not, how difficult is it to request a ballot online, vote 3rd party, affix a 44 cent postage stamp, and stick it in the mail? More difficult than voting up or down one of the comments here, but not much more. The potential benefit is if the winner of the pres election gets less than 50% of the vote, that guarantees the 3rd party vote total is greater than the margin of defeat for the loser. That outcome would pressure the two party system.
I also disagree with the sentiment that I've agreed to anything by voting, except that I am the person whose name and address is listed on the registration roll.
The lifeblood of democracy is education and information. From the moment the citizenry was deprived of these by state education and state-controlled corporate media, democracy died in short order.
Do publicly funded libraries count as 'state education'?
the empty suit mouth reading them may change, but the words and the teleprompter never do.
but go ahead, vote, because for the first time in 2012 Americans are going to see exactly what our votes really mean and how rigged this game really is. of course, most won't recognize the grift when it happens but the Vegas casino touch screen voting machines have already got this game locked up tight. this "contest" is about as real as a wwe wrestling match as the result has already been scripted.
it's all about selling the drama, keeping people divided and distracted and what better stage to do that than a presidential election? if you've been paying any attention at all you can smell the set up, you can see the MSM setting the table for what is going to be one of the single greatest manufactured political "crises" false flag divide and conquer routines ever.
one will win the electoral vote but lose the popular vote by a noticeable margin, accusations of voter fraud and tampering will come fast and furious, the MSM will blast headlines about how we were all cheated and people will take to the streets, because the sheeple will suffer no interference in their illusion of choice. or the electoral college will return a tie and congress, which has an approval rating of under 10%, will choose the next prez, and you know no matter who they choose people are going to hit the streets.
but to the PTB's this is all just a game and elections are a joke, bad comedy foisted on the masses to make them feel as if we have some say in how the money is spent and whether or not to bomb some country they can't point out on a map full of brown people and oil.
but 2012 is the brass ring for the PTB's as American's will be divided like never before which means more of everything, more TSA, DHS, more paramilitary cops on the streets, more surveillance and control, more fear of "domestic terrorism" and more sacrificing what little freedom and individuality we have left upon the alter of domestic safety and security.
For sure 'democracy' is taking a battering in recent years because of its failure to deliver. And this is fair criticism given the mess we're in. But not of the philosophical process of democracy itself but of the way in which successive governments and other vested interests have corrupted and perverted democracy to expand its powers, ultimately towards totalitarianism. Virtually every Western government now believes that when it's elected (very often by a minority %age of the adult population) it automatically acquires the power to apply totalitarian governance in every nook and cranny of our lives. This essentially morphs into dictatorship by the minority over the majority.
One solution for this is for democratic nations to institute a strong written constitution that clearly sets out and limits exactly what the roles & responsibilities are to be of an elected government. And if it ain't on the list, it ain't the government's business.
Clearly, said constitutions would need to be debated & agreed by the majority populations, and after implementation supervised by folks not in the pay of government. Any attempt by the elected government to override the constitution would be rejected and no law could be enacted that did so.
Holy shit!
Have you read the constitution?
Don't you realize that the reason we're in this sitution is because of the UNCONSTITUTIONAL acts of the government?
The NDAA, Citizens United, the Patriot Act and on and on....., where the fuck have you been?
Constitution or not, the system was and is not sustainable... aside from the fact that, technically speaking, the SCOTUS decides the constitutionality of matters... and, well, you're arguing over spilt milk.
and that's why you get the government you deserve.
we're talking social contract here, and if the constitution matters not, then there is no contract and all bets are off.
sounds like you're OK with that.
I'd guess you're a 1%er.
You've still failed to recognize what you've bargained for... the system is set up to be malleable... to change over time. As a result, there is an agreement to accept the changes... by and through, among other things, the choices of our elected representatives or the decisions of the SCOTUS. The notion of a "constitution" is not a rock, but instead more like putty. Be careful what you bargain for.
No, I'm not OK with that... however, given the democratic (loose use of the word) process is completely broken and compromised, the practical alternatives are few and far between.
Why would you presume that I'm a 1%er? I could just as easily be happy as a clam with my obama phone... eating table scraps... looking forward to dying of diabetes. Joking aside, as many here, I'm far too young to be in the 1% category... I live in a starter house (with a mortgage)... drive a 15 year old toyota... cook my own meals... clean my own house... mow my own yard... and wipe my own ass. Who knows whether I'll make it to the illustrious category... but I can say that if it does occur, it will be through moral endeavors as opposed to the path of fraud and subterfuge that many take... if I had my druthers, it would be from productive work rather than jerkoff services necessary due to inefficiencies in the economic and regulatory systems... however, I doubt that will happen. At this juncture, I am the last of the dying breed commonly referred to as the american middle class... or more like a 20%er ish.
"...the reason we're in this sitution is because of the UNCONSTITUTIONAL acts of the government?"
Quite so. But you do not have any useful mechanism of blocking your successive govts from doing that, without huge personal expense & stress.
Hence my previous comment that "the constitution needs to be supervised by people NOT in the pay of government". Be clear what I'm saying here...I'm talking of it being a criminal offence for any government to violate the constitution.
like many of you, been having an ongoing debate with friends and family over this thing that we call voting and choice. Many concede that most of them are well, very corrupt and that things suck and are getting suckier but argue nevertheless that I should vote for "the lesser of two evils." I always ask them why they chose that last word and whether or not, like history, there is a line in the sand where you can not endorse either. They say yes and then I ask them to define how you know weve reached that moment and then I get shrugs
I think the line in the sand for most folks would be loss of their "security" (job, home, credit, etc.) such that they are forced out of the "middle class" and into the ranks of the poor (working or otherwise).
Unable to provide things previously provided, such as eating out twice a week, unlimited whatever, even that annual Disney vacay, would trigger a feeling of anger in most middle class once they realize they are moving Down, not Up.
Stuck in the middle, they can't see as clearly and are busy trying to hold onto what they got to see that line has already been crossed.
luckily (or the opposite of that word), that moment is coming
I vote with my wallet and with my feet.
And yet the prices you pay for the things you need keep increasing... clearly you're materially improving the situation...
Unfortunately
NOT voting implies one doesn't care what government one has.
If there is NO way to register opposition, than not voting may be the only alternative.
But if there are third parties, or ballot options to oppose policies, then ...
"Unfortunately NOT voting implies one doesn't care what government one has."
I don't care. Burn it down.
Not caring what they do won't stop them.
They need to be opposed, including elections.
"Not caring what they do won't stop them."
What part of "not caring what they do" don't you understand?
I'm still writing in Ron Paul in red ink. done
You beat me to it. Strikes me that if that happened it would be the loudest form of dissent we could bring right now. God I would love to see that kind of solidarity in the face of this utter farce!
I guess I am not alone in my thoughts?
The legitamacy of our tyranny depends on high voter turnout. If 30k votes were cast do you think the bought and paid for stooges could run around demanding anything?
A system that started out electing delegates, that is what they were. We the people delegated certain functions to a government and were to choose who would carry out those functions.
Now we elect leaders. We have become subservient to the government, both in mind, and in law. (You can thank the 14th amendment for that, along with the act of 1871)
Time to opt out and regain our freedom.
pods
To put it in a different perspective, think about a MASS NON-Vote as a form of the Amish term "Shunning"
As a MASS act of Revulsion of the Non-Choices.
But unfortunately the reality is we have went from public declarations that "Clinton (then Bush) won the presidency without a majority of the vote," to "80%, then 90% , then 96% , then 99% , then 98%, and now ...% have endorsed vigorously faux choice A or faux choice B."
The term "democracy" is a term loosely used to describe our ability to vote for our government office holders. It is really not used correctly...... & BTW, what we have is not a democracy, it is a republic (that doesn't mean "republican", and democracy doesn't mean "democrat"). A republic is a definition that means we elect representatives to vote for us in Congress, this way the entire population does not have to vote on every issue, which is the definition of a democracy.
Nevertheless, today we have populations segments that think Obama will continue to help them and bring about their philosophical agenda, as well as more welfare/social benefits. It hasn't happened has it ? We have other population segments that think Romney will "right the ship" and set things back on course. Neither of these paradigms are correct. Both candidates will carry forth the agenda of the banksters, i.e. TPTB, & they will both carry out the mandate, but with a little different emphasis here and there.... NOTHING SIGNIFCANT WILL CHANGE. The budget will not go down, freedom will not return, TSA will get more power, necessary commoditites will go up, and the standard of living will go down as the banksters get richer.
He had me until the last 4 words, "you will be free". The Branch Davidians, Randy Weaver, et. al. would beg to differ.
Opt out and you will be killed.
Like it or not .... an election is a family photo of who we are .... and where we are .... if you choose not to be in the photo .... there will still be a sack head with your name on it .... Tantrumtard !
Who cares?
Just for grins I would love to see single digit turnout for this election. 7% of eligible voters turnout, and the rest just stay home. Let's see them spin that one. Deligitimize the whole damn monkey show. Clearly my fantasy world is all I have left...........
So many voted happily when our population was 200 million .... now that we are 300 million .... their egos are crushed ?
Particularly when the wants are programmed through propaganda. Keep their attention off of heath care and jobs, make them think its all about taxes or birth certificates. That way the 1% gets to keep their piles intact.
"The electorate will always vote for what they want, rather than what they need."
These elections carry a price tag of $6 billion dollars. When people spend money, they expect something in return. "Democracy" is up for sale to the highest bidders who usually get the "freedom" to do whatever they please. That is the extent of freedom in the good ole' USA...
I don't suppose getting off your sofa in your mom's basement and going out and working to change the system is an option.
You know, joining the local political system of your choice and starting to change the system? No? You'd rather just play video games?
Doing the hard work is too... what's the word? Hard?
I've worked and paid taxes for the last 35 years. The United States and its political system can go fuck itself.
As long as the majority cast a vote, the system remains viable. If 5% of the people voted, do you think the elected scum could run around talking about a mandate?
Why do you think they give out those silly "I voted" stickers? To reinforce your belief in the viability of the system.
Our original system of government is dead. A bullet was put in the head of the republic by a man who received likewise.
Since then it has slowly rotted to where we are today.
Now it is merely a putrid mass of regulatory capture and tyranny.
pods
More people would vote if they could legally sell their vote .... which I believe they should be free to do .... if you can't sell it .... it ain't really yours !
Agreed. They are buying votes anyways. Why not remove the veil?
Brought to you by Carl's Jr.
pods
I always vote .... I certainly don't always get what I want .... it is what it is .... if our votes are so insignificant .... why do the people who choose not to vote .... make such a big noisy fuss about it .... just do it .... er, just don't do it !
"if our votes are so insignificant .... why do the people who choose not to vote .... make such a big noisy fuss about it"
Because we're subjected to year after year after year of millions of people like you telling us who we should vote for and why it's so important. If you want to vote for a candidate on election day, just do it and shut up. We don't care what you think...
My brother (inventor of the phrase Randian Filth) helped me with my ballot .... there were a couple of offices we couldn't figure out .... like School Board member .... one was the incumbent piece of shit .... the challenger was a "teacher, child psychologist, school administrator" piece of shit .... I marked "NEITHER" !
“Voting for Libertarianism is oxymoronic. You can not vote for your freedom because the ballot is a signed contract which binds you to a democratic system specifically designed to defraud you of any choice. Only by not voting can you opt out. This does not mean that you will not be subject to the tyranny of the majority but you will be free.”
As you sit with your leg irons locked and your arms locked behind you in an iron harness, you are free. You can be free to dream about what it might have been, you can be free and victorious. But you will still be sitting in a despotic welfare state run by a military cartel.
At this point, to encourage not voting is to encourage the reelection of Barack Obama. And if that’s freedom, then you can have it.
And remember while you sit there on your principles, Bloomberg, as he said, will be voting.
The choice may be between two evils but a non vote is actually a vote; a vote for Obama. And don’t come up to me when Obama is reelected and say to me, it’s not my fault, I didn’t vote. You did vote.
But we don't care who's "elected," because it doesn't matter. So why would we care what effect our "non vote" has on the election?
No doubt there are some people who are not affected with loss of liberty, higher taxes, destruction of their neighborhoods, and a spectacular assault on their culture.
Not voting then is a choice for them. And if they choose not to be activists in the fight for liberty, hopefully they at least will keep their mouths shut.
I admire the rising opposition against the two-party system and the sentiments of those suggesting that Americans stop voting. But their efforts have not grown enough to yet change the system and to stop voting now when all their enemies are in the long lines casting ballots for welfare, government healthcare, higher taxes including an inheritance tax, cap and trade legislation, open border immigration, government-controlled schools … the list goes on, is to surrender life, liberty and property to those who will bind you.
For those who advocate not voting, will they join us in fighting? Now!
No. Let it collapse.
Collapse? Yes, but a controlled collapse. The Obama Administration is a growing welfare state program but closely allied with the banking cartel that dominates foreign policy, the Congress, the courts, and the presidency.
Continuing with Obama is heading for collapse but not on the terms you and I would select; it is heading for the collapse of freedom.
And for some strange reason, you don't think that the Reps aren't as "closely allied" with the financial sector as the Dems? What color is the sky in your world?
Disregarding your insult, take a moment to compare the possible presidencies of Obama and Romney. There are many similarities, of course. But for the differences, some thoughtful consideration is required.
The media, as never before, has gone all out for an Obama reelection. YouTube’s most popular videos at the moment:
“Romney Burned by Own Lie to Ohioans” and
“Mr. Burns Endorses Romney” (the Simpsons’ model of a corrupt, corporate executive).
And from my newspaper this morning:
“Factories Hum, Shoppers Confident,” and
“Venture Capitalists’ Confidence Rises in Silicon Valley” and
“Manufacturing Expands, Consumer Confidence Up” and
“Construction Spending Highest in Three Years.”
If they would only have had the jobs report in time, they could have used it all over the front page.
So my question is: What is the media afraid of with Romney?
The two-party system may be corrupt and broken, but it’s a mistake to suggest that there is little difference between Romney and Obama, and the next four years would be somewhat the same with either of them.
Romney, for example, says he will work to end the inheritance tax, repeal the alternative minimum tax and retain the Bush-era tax cuts on all incomes. He would work for fewer income tax deductions, primarily on the wealthy, but reduce rates in all categories: 35% down to 28%, 10% down to 8%, etc.
Romney opposes cap & trade legislation, would be less restrictive on energy development: oil drilling, natural gas, coal, and nuclear. He would work to repeal the health care legislation; would cap federal spending at 20% of GDP. He opposes the Fed’s current bond buying program and has said he would replace Fed Chairman Bernanke.
Romney would push back stronger against illegal immigration: with the border fence, no benefits for illegal students in college and punishment for employers who hire illegals after a verification program is in place.
On social issues, Romney’s positions differ sharply from Obama’s. He favors a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage, opposes civil union benefits if they are the same as marriage benefits, favors repeal of Roe versus Wade, would allow states to ban abortions, and favors a ban federal funds being given to Planned Parenthood.
"Romney says"
"Romney would"
Yeah, right, I'm sure he'll be as much of a game changer as was Obama. Considering that both parties are effectively owned by the same sectors that will have the most affect on your life and liberties, I'd expect the same result with Mittens as we've gotten from Obama as far as campaign promises are concerned. The system is set up to maintain the status quo.
When in the hell are people going to wise up and stop believing ("change we can believe in") campaign promises? Do you think the ancient adage about when you can tell a politician is lying (his lips are moving) is not based on fact and experience?
From a Fred Reed essay on this farce that I posted elsewhere here:
Finally, though it may not be deliberate, the schools produce a pitiably ignorant population that can't vote wisely. Just as trial lawyers don't want intelligent jurors, as they are harder to manipulate, so political parties don't want educated voters. The existence of a puzzled mass gawping at Oprah reduces elections to popularity contests modulated by the state of the economy. One party may win, yes, or the other. But a TV-besotted electorate doesn't meddle in matters important to its rulers. It has never heard of them.
To disguise all of this, elections provide the excitement and intellectual content of a football game, without the importance. They allow a sense of Participation. In bars across the land, in high-school gyms become forums, people become heated about what they imagine to be decisions of great import: This candidate or that? It keeps them from feeling left out while denying them power.
It is fraud. In a sense, the candidates do not even exist. A presidential candidate consists of two speechwriters, a makeup man, a gestures coach, ad agency, two pollsters and an interpreter of focus groups. Depending on his numbers, the handlers may suggest a more fixed stare to crank up his decisiveness quotient for male or Republican voters, or dial in a bit of compassion for a Democratic or female audience. The newspapers will report this calculated transformation. Yet it works. You can fool enough of the people enough of the time.
Why is a non-vote automatically a vote for Obama, and not a vote for Romney? If I vote Gary Johnson, are you going to be one of those idiots who tell me who I really voted for?
"But . . . but . . . if you don't vote for the progressive, corporatist, gun-grabbing architect of Obamacare, then Obama might win again!"
In short, you're an idiot, and you deserve everything you're gonna get, regardless of which way the election goes.
It’s true; if you don’t care whether Obama or Romney wins, then vote for Gary Johnson. But you need to work on your expressions of compassion. They tend to marginalize your viewpoints.
This is why China will win.
Win what? China has about 40 cars for every 1,000 people and much of the population lives in the 19th century.
Voting is an act of violence. And it is aggressive, not defensive in nature.
The very act of choosing sides is an attempt to force others to bend to your will and abide by your rules.
I can't on the one hand demand that everyone leave me the hell alone, and on the other attempt to force them to behave the way I want.
You just go with the flow .... no problemo !
I work as much as I can off the grid, take care of my kids, and wait for the day when the system finally grinds to a halt due to lack of maintenance.
I don't interfere with other people, and don't want them to interfere with me.
I call it living life and trying to be happy.
I figure this is the best I can do for myself and everyone else...
Me too .... I said no problemo ! We are stuck in the same system and sausage must be made .... it ain't always pretty !
"Every time you vote you sign the Social Contract."
Bang!
"Your role, by voting, is to legitimise this corruption."
Boom!
I'm Allowed to Rob You!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE
I would love to see welfare recipients (niggers and others even worse) selling their votes to the highest bidder outside the polling place ! I also believe scalping and price gouging should be our inherent right .... I do object to letting the socialist define the terms .... Scalping ? .... Price Gouging ? .... I prefer to call it sharing your scarce commodity for a fair market price !
I voted so junk me. You should have seen the lady doing the electric machine when I did not vote for the local and national politicians. She was so flustered. I voted on local issues and frigging more tax hikes on me.
You want to screw a polling station up just vote on local and state issues.
You said to junk you ? One guy was afraid he'd be called a douchebag .... so I called him a douchebag ! I can see myself living high in the mountains in ten years .... hell, I'm gonna hit the pipe right now and take a shit !
Our founding fathers put the vote in place as a way to elect REPRESENTATIVES to PROTECT our CONSTITUTONAL RIGHTS. The vote is not the problem, it is the voters. The reality is that the representatives are just a reflection of the populace. The people have lost the true spirt of the USA and have become stupid, complacent, dependent collectivists rather than responsible free-thinking individualists. At this point, the vote is the only mechanism for peaceful reform. Vote 3rd party. The only other option is civil war. All you non-voters, are you prepeparing for battle? I bet not, so shut the fuck up with your defeatist vote bashing; that attitude isn't doing us any good.
Exactly. Socialism can only survive when the people can vote themselves the treasury – that is "democracy."
The Founding Fathers, who established a republic and deplored a "democracy," put certain restrictions on who had the right to vote in America. One of those restrictions was limiting voting to property owners; a person with a vested stake in the country is careful how he votes his property.
Just because you were a citizen or walked across the border did not automatically give you the right to vote yourself another man’s property as it does today in America.
More and more the low information voter has become a no information voter, the ideal supporter of government socialism - "democracy."
"All you non-voters, are you prepeparing for battle? I bet not, so shut the fuck up with your defeatist vote bashing; that attitude isn't doing us any good."
LOL...if it's pissing you off, it's working...