What if you disagree with the system of giving everyone a vote being a valid way to decide things?
So you don't vote allowing OTHERS to decide the process for you.
Other people who say, elect leaders who nominate Conservative Supreme Court Judges, who then side with the FEC allowing corporations to fund political advertisements. This was quite preventable.
I mean good on you for standing to your principles but with a whole collective of intelligent people abstaining, it's making it much easier for powerful people who want certain laws to happen... well happen.
Asking me to vote is like asking me "Do you still beat your wife?" in some sense. There's no good way out. The best option is to not reply.
That's not even getting into my philosophical issues with government in the first place.
If you look at the dynasties that win elections in the US - Bush, Kennedy, etc They may as well be a monarchy.
Democracy typically only gives you 2 choices, and if they are both from dynastial families, it's pretty much a monarchy with the illusion of democracy anyway.
> "Monarchy?! Sure, you might be lucky and get a good monarch – but their son could be a total douchebag (like Wilhelm II, the gaffe-emperor who led Germany into World War I)."
Sounds like Bush Sr and Bush Jr to me,
[+] As always with ancient democratic Athens several caveats apply, e.g. you had to be rather rich to be eligible for that.
Merit might work, but it has the capability to discriminate against certain classes (even those who might otherwise make informed decisions).
I might be able to accept a system where you have to perform some level of service to the state in order to gain a vote. Something like military service, peace corp, teaching, being an EMT, etc... But then that starts to seem to Starship Troopers to me.
Yes, and this is all you need to prove - an example of such a test would be the ability to match up policy statements to candidates. No need for a maths test.
Regarding the inability to read - If blind people can currently vote in your country, then the problem does not exist.
"I disagree with the system" is intellectually lazy and in my experience merely a cover story for apathy.
Another view is that perhaps no one wants to change the system because it is, all things considered, better than the alternatives.
You make the assumption enough people want to change it. They don't. At least, not yet. Candidates aren't some otherworldly beast, they are citizens. If people really wanted to enact change, they could.
You can't make a change alone. If enough people want to make the change, they can vote to make it happen. It's a really simple concept.
You're saying that if a majority of people wanted change then they could vote for it, and it would happen.
But the change we've been discussing is the fact that 'majority want X' isn't a fair system in some peoples view.
If you believe, like I do, that "1 vote per person" is a flawed system and not good for the common good, there isn't really that much you can do.
The majority will vote for silly things that may well not be in their long term best interests. You can't trust the majority with anything.
The populace is so poorly educated that researching candidates and issues is an enormous strain on them, and most people can't make themselves do it. Asking someone who got a poor education to read through a bill or look through a voting record is asking a lot.
Yes, you are (at least for the question), here:
> How will voting change the system if no candidate is willing to change it?
You have to make the assumption that people are willing to make the change for that question to be valid, otherwise, it reads like thsi:
"How will voting change the system if no candidate is willing to change it and voters aren't willing to change it?"
So yes, you do assume, for the question, that the voters want change. And if the majority of voters want that change, it can be made to happen. They simply vote for it.
Maybe I just assume too much of people. Was this little diversion really necessary?
But you were.
> Rather than call me a liar,
I didn't.
> you could assume that either you misunderstood,
I didn't. You said what you said. If you didn't mean what you said, fine. But then clarify it.
> or I misspoke and decided correcting it wasn't worth spending text on.
Then maybe you should avoid commenting on things you don't feel are worth your time, especially when you can't be bothered to say what you mean.
> Maybe I just assume too much of people.
I make the assumption people say what they mean. As you've demonstrated,
> Was this little diversion really necessary?
Apparently you found it necessary. Rather than simply correct what you wrote, you decided to disregard what I said and then comment on things completely unimportant to the discussion.
You asked a question, and I answered. If you aren't interested in a discussion, don't post here. If you are, at least have the courtesy to be clear about what you write. Being lazy and uncaring about quality aren't respected here.
So if you disagree with that premise (That one person per vote is fair), what should you do? throw your useless vote in the box with all the people who voted because they like the candidates hair?
FWIW I vote anyway since it's the lesser of 2 evils.
In the recent Australian election by election day each party had summarized there policies/ attacks into a few dot points which they had talked about over and over again hoping I guess to impart at least a few dot points on people before they vote.