> We vote for some people every 4 years and then they can basically do whatever they want
That's the reason I have not voted for a while. Once I give my only vote, I cannot take it back but I'm indirectly responsible what they will do.
That's the reason I have not voted for a while. Once I give my only vote, I cannot take it back but I'm indirectly responsible what they will do.
This is bad argument. What if neither candidate is remotely fit for your vote? What if due to a very ancient but rather simple system, third party candidates don't stand a chance? What if it would be far more effective to lobby than to vote if you want change?
I could just as easily argue that voting legitimizes a broken system in need of radical reform.
2 part reply:
1) The neither candidate is remotely fit for your vote argument is valid but should be only be used on a rare instance. For example, in the last presidential election, the 2 final candidates may have not been perfect but it's hard to claim they were both not fit to be presidents, especially given they were both chosen among many others during the primaries, which brings me to my second point.
2) At least here in the US, there are the primaries. Usually the 2 candidates are the products of early voting. If you don't vote, they don't have to appeal to you. If you vote, they have to appeal to you. Over time, the political "market" steers towards those who vote. "People get the government they deserve" - Alexis de Toqueville
Let's say you're on the Supreme Court and a case is brought before you that is very hairy and frankly, you don't think a clear guilty or not guilty judgement would be right since there is so much gray area to it so you decide, you're not going to give a verdict. You're one of 9 justices and 3 others decide to do exactly what you're doing: absence from providing their vote on guilty or not guilty.
Do you really think that the 4 justices who didn't cast their verdict didn't affect the results?
There are plenty of other ways to become involved and have an influence, however small. Not liking the choices is not a good excuse for not participating.
(source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_i...)
In practice many Australians use these to lodge none-of-the-above votes.
One is the encumbant, vote against that one. One is the opponent, vote for that one.
Here's the deal, politicians that aren't in office have no power, no fun, and no reason to live. So they desparately seek "being in office." (often times by making silly promises but that is another comment)
Now if you have a choice between a giant douche (GD) and a turd sandwich (TS) and you always vote against the incumbent. Then one of them (and often both of them) will start changing their behavior so that if they get into office they would stay there. You have the power to modify their behavior, use it.
Many elections are won by a difference of less than 10%. So if the 10% of the electorate can choose to play this game (is there 1 in 10 intelligent people in your district?) they will create a better government for everyone.
They use a simple rule: 1) Person in office is doing a 'good' job? Vote for him 2) Person in office is doing a 'bad' job? Vote against him
It doesn't matter who is running against them or their qualifications. Because, like evolution, this system has its own fitness function (the 10% group think they are doing a 'good' job) which anyone running will quickly come to realize determines if they stay in office.
You can even start a campaign "I'm one of the 10% making a better government for you." And when you talk to your elected officials, and candidates for office, let them know the criteria you are using to determine 'good' and what it will take to stay in office.
The only way to defeat this system is with outright vote fraud which, as intelligent people, you should be able to help the election commission detect. No amount of special interests, no amount of campaign money, no amount of lying to the stupid people will work.
So use this system and always vote. It always matters.
Give me a vote of no confidence and then I will vote. Otherwise the only thing your vote means is that you have faith in the system. Exactly what they want.
Many elections are won by a difference of less than 10%.
So if the 10% of the electorate can choose to play this
game (is there 1 in 10 intelligent people in your
district?) they will create a better government for
everyone.
For example, lets take Minnesota's 6th District. Even an absolute loon like Bachmann can get elected there because the district is so heavily weighted towards Republicans, the Republican primary serves as a stand-in for the general election.
"I don’t vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, “If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain”, but where’s the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain.
I, on the other hand, who did not vote — who did not even leave the house on Election Day — am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created."
Edit: Hehe, no not you personally; I should have said "your nation." :)
I think the problems you cite are made much worse by our weak political participation. When people participate, they're forced to be somewhat aware of what's going on. By not participating they allow themselves to disconnect, which let's politicians get away with more and more.
The root cause is education, if people were more educated they'd feel more empowered and more informed and be more likely to participate--with better results. I think the two party system allows people to be uninformed and just vote on a reflect.
Edit: I know, I was only jesting.