Hacker News Reader

> Those in power want you not to vote

No, those in power very much want you to vote. Voting is a great feel-good process that gives the illusion that the people are sovereign when in reality we have practically no power and the government can do whatever the hell it wants as long as both parties agree on it. If this wasn't a democracy it would be quite clear where the power really lies, but since it is a democracy, this problem is obscured quite nicely. A thought-provoking thread from a few days about about this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5801276

You can have the best of both worlds: vote, but don't leave the democratic / political process alone after that for the remaining part of the year.

Or don't vote, and take every opportunity to peacefully undermine the government by educating people, participating in alternate currencies and black markets, striving to be self-sufficient, etc.

I don't believe in this. It's not that it doesn't make sense it's that it seems like fighting a losing battle. To me it seems the only way to change things is from within. Trying to affect change the way you describe makes you the "other" and its easy for them to take steps to either make your life harder or shut you down completely. It's this same kind of mentality that I think makes the whole copyright issue a losing battle. The more you fight it the more everyone loses. The minute you win a battle they make the means by which you won it illegal or a tedious process.

Don't get me wrong, you're definitely fighting a losing battle. Even (especially!) those who have utilized violence for their supposedly revolutionary goals are fighting a losing battle, and I'm suggesting foregoing violence.

But I completely disagree that the way to change things is from within. When has that ever actually worked? Sure, governments get overthrown from within, but that just results in another government (that may be better, but which also may be worse), and it doesn't change the attitude of the people toward the very concept of government, which in my opinion is the problem. Governments don't get smaller and more respecting of civil liberties. The United States is arguably the most valiant and educated attempt at creating a small and unobtrusive government, and in a very short period it has grown into arguably one of the largest governments ever to grace the Earth.

I think the only hope for lasting change is for the attitude of society toward government to change, and I do think that education and counter-economics are the best ways to show people that the roles that are supposedly only accomplishable by government in fact don't require government at all. That said, the likelihood of any measurable change happening in my lifetime is low, but I suppose that's just part of the human condition.

Yeah, they want people to vote because then they can say: "will of majority". If only 1 person voted, the so called democracy would fail (people would eventually get it), because 1 person is not representing majority and majority is what democracy is all about (with all respect to minorities). They only made semantic switch saying that if you don't vote then you don't care -> not true because what if you are against (for example corrupted?) system and want real change -> should there be an voting choice: "this is not working, change the system"? :-)

I was involved in marking a standardized test for high school students and one question involved inventing a story on an (unspecified) election. What shocked me the most, aside from the poor writing ability, the unintentionally unbelievable facts of the stories, and the surprising amount of confusion and internal contradiction within the students' responses, was that although remarkably few students demonstrated much awareness of politics or the political process, despite having taken a mandatory course on this subject, nearly all of the students regarded voting as a mystical or near-spiritual experience of civic involvement, social communion, and individual empowerment.

Some students were probably 'sucking up'. But nearly every student?

Isn't it because that's how they are taught to answer those type of questions by their ol government teachers?

Then beat them. Let them spend all the money they spend trying to get you to vote, then use that vote to cast a ballot for a third party candidate that best reflects your beliefs.

Being able to get a substantial number of votes is a HUGELY BIG DEAL for third parties, as at some point (I can't remember the number exactly, I think it's 4%) they start getting federal funds to aid in future elections.

A viable third party, or even better, a variety of parties would provide the electoral market place more competition, potentially stop all politicians from positioning themselves in the middle, and free politicians with real views from needing to pander to party lines.

The problem is that FPTP mathematically guarantees a 2 party system in a steady state. So long as you own the 2 parties, you effectively own the government. What's worse is that it also actively works against additional parties.

We also have a rampant issue of uninformed voting. I'd bet there are close to 50M people who just "vote with the party" and follow their biased news network rather than learning about the candidates and issues, then forming their own opinions.

I think you're overstating the situation there. My understanding is that FPTP tends to result in a 2 party system, but I have not heard it asserted that it guarantees such. And there are counter-examples listed on the Wikipedia page for Duverger's Law[1], so we know it doesn't always happen.

It's also important to keep in mind what "two party system" really means. In the US, for example, it is not the case that every elected official belongs to one of two parties. There are both independent ("unaffiliated") office-holders (in what would be considered partisan positions) and 3rd party office-holders. The Libertarian Party, for example, usually claims approximately 600 elected officers nationwide (not all in partisan positions however) in average years.

So, net-net, while FPTP is a bad system in many ways, one should not feel that there is no value in voting for 3rd party or unaffiliated candidates in such a system. Under some circumstances they do win, and in other cases they at least affect the outcome, which - in turn - affect the public discourse - and they may impact the Overton window as well.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

Mindcrime has already said much of what I would have, but ignoring FPTP has advantages as well, mainly, that it allows people actually vote their conscience, for better or worse.

I can't argue that it isn't 'throwing away' your vote, in the short term, but over the very long term, there needs to be some people throwing away their vote in order to encourage more to do so such that eventually the landscape changes.

> Those in power want you not to vote

Of course they want you to vote. Only they don't vote. They just prepay all politicians so that whichever of them wins the election is already in their payroll. Units of power are not people, are cents. When did this start?

> Those in power want you not to vote.

If that's the case, the amount of resources candidates spend trying to get people to vote is peculiar.

> If you don't vote, you're still entitled to complain but I personally won't take you as seriously because you haven't tried to affect change.

The only way I could even begin to see any validity to your point is if an election were a tie or decided by a single vote.

> if an election were a tie or decided by a single vote.

Agreed. There are plenty of ways to affect change without voting.

> the amount of resources candidates spend trying to get people to vote is peculiar.

It's not that simple. Candidates are not the only people involved in politics and voting and influencing voters.

They are decided by single votes.

Usually, there are several millions of single votes working together to make it happen. But it's not like anyone's voting in aggregate.

> They are decided by single votes.

Yes, but they are not decided by a single vote, and a single vote is all you get.

My problem with "I don't vote because it's a sham" is in two parts:

1. It's very often just a pseudo-intellectual justification for not bothering to educate yourself about any of the issues, politicians or policies at hand, or to actually define your own philosophical/policy position and have it subjected to possible challenge and critique. It's laziness and cowardice masquerading as superiority.

2. It's also very popular as a defense mechanism for fantasists and fundamentalists who refuse to accept that: reality is messy, none of us has all the answers, none of us has quite the same experience or expertise and thus even those disagreeing with us have much value to bring to the table, that there's no rational reason to expect 300 million people with different experiences with different policies and different parts of the country to ever agree on where the problems are nor how to fix them, and -- most of all -- that we ourselves might actually be wrong about some of our fundamental assumptions and the people disagreeing with us might not only have a point, but that we might be standing behind the wrong policy.

If you can accept these things, you can accept that compromise is not awful or evidence of failure in and of itself and that democracy is very rarely about 'right' and 'wrong' choices. You would recognize the messy process of compromise and politics is itself a feature.

Progress is a messy, irregular march not from A to B, but from A[n] to B[n], where not every path is straight, or known, or necessarily moves forward on each tick of the clock. Much of the time the destination isn't even known when we have to decide a course (whether it exists, where it is, whether it's fixed or floating -- even whether it's fundamentally knowable) and sometimes we're not even sure where it is that we're starting from.

Now, if you want to argue that there are problems (primarily, that money has corrupted the system) I will enthusiastically agree. But there's no solution to those problems that hinges on not voting.

There are things that we can do other than and in addition to voting. But they don't in any way preclude voting or benefit from our abstaining from voting.

Your vote is your mandate.

If you so choose not to give your mandate to anyone, that is up to you.

It is the only political power I have, and even though the statement is ignored or interpreted as apathy, the statement that you don't believe in any of those arseholes is just as valid as the statement that you do.

I, personally, cannot stand the "then vote for the least worst because at least the other guy won't get in" argument either. To me that's the root of the terrible politics we have in the UK and the US now.

Your vote is not the only political power you have. You can organize people, even if it is only at the local level. Once you do that, you have begun to gain political power, and that is how political careers are started. We do not have titles of nobility here; nobody is more entitled to be politically engaged than anyone else.

In practice, it is hard to take power from the established parties. It is hard to get past the local level without being well-connected. Hard, but not impossible.

Organizing people isn't the only power you have beyond your vote, either. Issues are complex, and I feel like I couldn't reasonably vote FOR something I want without also voting against many things I want. I could spend countless hours tracking down the candidates who, on average, best served my personal interests and preferences, all so I could cast my one little vote...but that wouldn't make much sense for me. There are better ways to spend the time.

If you care about animal rights, you can spend that time volunteering or making more money to donate to DIRECTLY support the causes you care about. You can pay closer attention to the dollar votes you're casting (which can't be discounted as a means of political influence).

If you're bothered by GMOs and factory farming, you can help set up local gardens to reduce reliance on conventional produce. You can educate people around you so they understand why it's important to maintain the integrity of our food supply.

If you don't appreciate companies turning over your information to the government, you can (try to) find one that doesn't, and let the company you're leaving know why. You can donate to the EFF and similar organizations.

As much as people like to get emotional about voting, it's not terribly effective as a means of bringing about change - especially once you take into account that politicians often mislead people about their intentions or change them completely once they have more power.

It's the only power I actually have and hold now, unlike the possibility of future influence that may come from running for office.

How is voting (in the way you describe it) for the sake of voting and supporting a corrupt political system knowing it WILL NOT affect change your duty?

Your duty as a citizen is to support the other members of your society, whether it be by voting in politicians you think will lead the country towards better times for everyone or just following the laws and not interfering with the rights of others. The state and political structure is only a means of choosing organized leadership towards that end.

If voting inevitably leads to a government that blatantly disregards the overall interests of its society, what purpose does voting serve in your "duty as a citizen?"

I personally think that none of us have a right to complain for our own complacency is to blame, but I take issue with the idea that voting is somehow a citizen's duty, even if it's inevitable result is explicit support for violence and corruption.

(yes, "inevitable" is a gross exaggeration, although with these last two presidents it looks quite bleak)

> To take on this "I don't vote because its a sham" mentality is to play right into their little game. When enough people fall for it that's when it becomes a reality.

This could apply to the opposite perspective just as well.

    >This is totally backwards and you have to do some mental gymnastics to believe it.

I think he was pretty much dead on on this one. Swap Republican/Democrat politics for another any other choice and the "you have no right to complain" point makes less sense. Take a fictional encounter with a Doctor...

Dr: You're going to get testicular cancer. Would you prefer it in the left testicle or the right?

Me: I don't want cancer in either testicle.

Dr: You don't understand, if you don't pick a nut then you don't have the right to complain about having testicular cancer.

This is a stupid comparison, and it contributes to the dumbing down of politics and political thought.

The analogy has nothing to do with political thought, it's to demonstrate the flawed logic that not making a choice somehow deprives one of the right to hold an opinion. No need to get testy.

In George Carlin's fantasy world:

Me: I don't want cancer in either testicle.

Dr: Congratulations. You are no longer at risk of cancer.

Seriously, if this were a real conversation and given that I'm going to get cancer (per first line), I'd pick one testicle and then have them remove it.

Meanwhile, you'd 'choose' not to get cancer and get it anyway, but without any control whatsoever.

But not picking one doesn't preclude you from having it removed, so we both still have the same amount of control.

In reality, I could write in my neighbor's dog on the ballot, to demonstrate I am a politically engaged individual who is likely to vote for a human candidate if the candidates change their tune.

That is the superior answer to the mythical doctor visit, as well.

I would further argue that refusing to be involved may have resulted in cancer in both the left nut and right nut.

Unfortunately the analogy may be a bit too applicable for comfort, eh?

    >In reality, I could write in my neighbor's dog on the ballot, to demonstrate I am a politically engaged individual who is likely to vote for a human candidate if the candidates change their tune. That is the superior answer to the mythical doctor visit, as well.

Does anything you say have anything have to do with addressing the point that making a choice somehow magically correlates to the ability to hold an opinion? Because politics or your dog doesn't really have anything to do with it.

    >I would further argue that refusing to be involved may have resulted in cancer in both the left nut and right nut.

Well for anybody that insists on flogging the cancer/politics analogy then this would be impossible, assuming you are a member of the US electorate, as a viable candidate from either party would never pick a running mate from the other side of the aisle (right nut cancer would be mutually exclusive of left nut cancer).

One way to see that a democracy doesn't work is to look at the rate of voters.... if it is really low, I would say that it fails.

It's presented as a joke, but his real opinion is in there. George Carlin didn't vote in presidential elections.