Last night as I was between the moment of consciousness and the kind of consciousness where you're not really conscious but where you're conscious enough to have dreams and stuff, (Possible over use of the word conscious) I had a thought.
It was about the notion that, if you don't vote in elections you can’t complain about the result. My thought was that this idea is nonsense, and while my mind was drifting in an out, an analogy came to me.
Two politicians are running for election. Alan the politician makes a manifesto pledge that, should he be elected, he will start hitting people in the face with a crowbar. He runs on this principle, he drives it home at every rally, and every interview.
Barry the politician hails from a party at the other end of the spectrum, and is fundamentally opposed to Alan's crowbar policy. They argue back and forth in every debate. Barry vitriolically lampoons Alans crowbar pledge, and says it’s absurd, and remnant of a failed ideology.
Barry comes out with his own manifesto. He swears before a crowd of screaming supporters on live TV that he will personally kneecap every person he comes into contact with, with a steel baseball bat, and will increase spending to hire more bat wielders. He proudly waves said bat at every town-hall meeting. His campaign bus is emblazoned with the words "ITS BAT TIME!"
Now, meet Dave. Dave is a voter. Dave is appalled by both candidates. He neither wants to be smashed in the face by a crowbar, nor does he wish to be kneecapped with a baseball bat. He is flabbergasted that either of these politicians have any support, as their policies seem so illogical to him as both will lead to him (and others) being hurt.
Dave decides he’s not going to vote. He’s going to stay at home. Friends question him about who he wishes to vote for, to which he responds "no one". His friends are appalled. He’s not taking part in the democratic process. "People died so you could vote" they say. "Every vote counts", they intercede. "I'm just not voting. Both those candidates are terrible, and I'm not going to vote for someone that's going to bring harm to me or others". His friends chastise him for being naive and go on their way.
Election Day comes, and it’s a close run thing, but Alan takes it. 53%-47% with a 70% turnout.
Barry graciously accepts defeat, while claiming to his downtrodden fans that "The bat will be back!" holding it above his head defiantly.
Alan is sworn in before an ecstatic crowd. Notably there are many young voters in the crowd. TV pundits claim that Alans new and bold crowbar vision won over many people on the campuses in the constituency, who were tired of the old baseball bat driven politics of their parent’s generation.
Alan stands before them and states loudly that "I campaigned on smashing people in the face with a crowbar, and as God as my witness, I mean to see it through....starting RIGHT NOW!" At which point he slams the crowbar into the security guard standing next to him.
The crowd goes wild, cheering, with the kids attending, waving plastic crowbars in delight.
Some days later, Dave is walking to the store, when a suited man walks right up to him and cracks him right on the nose with a crow bar.
A kind stranger helps him to his feet as the suited man leaves. Dave is shocked. The stranger says "Yes, it’s terrible. Ever since Alan got in, his administration has been hitting people with crowbars, don't blame me though, I voted for the bat guy. It really annoys me that so many people didn't vote....this is what happens!"
Dave says nothing other than "Thank you" and proceeds down the road...still bleeding.
As he walks away, he thinks to himself "This is ridiculous, I'm emigrating to the country across the sea...I hear that their government only punches you in the gut, now that’s freedom"
This is what I think of pretty much ALL elections.
...I thought all this....and then fell asleep.
Here's my view of politics.
So you're saying your view of politics is woefully ignorant? Got it!
Keep voting for masters...The next one may be real nice.
Calling something a master doesn't make it so. I'll happily take my duly elected representatives over the warlords and dictators that would spring up without a democratic government.
Calling someone who has power over your life, even if you don't want them to, a master...is correct though
So, government, which is a tiny number of people with power over a massive army, armed to the teeth, that was given power, by maybe 30% of the population is better than a warlord?
Interesting.
Dumb, but interesting.
If I don't want someone in charge of my life, and they are in charge of my life, thats a master.
Decided to actually add this to the end of the blog :)
You should go look up false dichotomy.
The reality is there are at least four candidates in the race, and one of them absolutely will win. By not picking someone, you're allowing everyone else to choose for you.
This is why you perceive there to only be two candidates... years of people not voting for the others has weakened the system so that only two matter. It's worsened things for everyone, when you could have been voting for Libertarians forever and there'd be better candidates and a lot fewer taxes and laws that piss you off.
And if all 4 candidates are people you don't want making decisions about your life?
I could have just as easily created another 2 candidates in my blog who were also unseemly.
Your argument seems to be "This system is awful, but its going to remain awful, so you may as well put your statistically insignificant vote in the box in the hope that the least awful person may win...which of course legitimises the awful system we have"
...Or am I missing something?
Yes, you're missing the fact that you're making up the example to fail.
Look, nothing is perfect. Let's say you were shopping for a new car, but one had slightly uncomfortable seats, another had shitty stereo, the third had no cupholders and the fourth completely lacked trunk space. In that situation do you give up and walk everywhere complaining about having to walk?
More to the point, in reality the Libertarian party would do more of what you want than any other party. So all of you anarchists collectively, whose vote might not collectively be statistically insignificant decide not to vote and let the big government Republicans and Democrats win. You could vote in a Ron Paul or Gary Johnson who'd reduce the size of the government and get rid of laws against drugs and reduce taxes. It's not everything you want, but it's on the right path and if your ideas work out people would see life getting better and be more likely to stick to that path.
Instead you opt out until you can change everything instantly, and lose everything... then complain about it endlessly.
If every single Jewish person voted against the NAZIs,, it wouldnt have mattered because the Jews were in a small minority.
Democracy means nothing if you're a small minority.
10% of people cannot stop 90% of people subjucating them via democracy.
If every single person who didn't vote voted Johnson(for the sake of argument), he'd still struggle to win.(and of course not every non-voter is a libertarian)
Which of course brings us back to the concept that more people voting for something isn't a moral reason for implementing your beliefs on others!
You seem to be willfully ignoring this fact.
I don't want a nice slaveowner like Johnson who'll whip us less and make the plantation nicer.
Who do I vote for if I don't wan't a master?
Wheres the none of the above option?
If there was, then you might tempt me out to put my statistically insignificant piece of paper in a box every 4 years.
I could keep shopping until I found a car I liked...or choose a bus....or train...or a taxi...or cycle...or choose none of the above and walk
No one is going to force me to choose between a few vehicle options and then force that option on me because other people happen to like that option!
Yes, the Libertarian party is less evil...they're the nicest slaveowners around. But what if I dont want to partake in evil? What if I feel I dont need a slaveowner?
There clearly arent enough Ron Paul or Gary Johnson supporters right now to win, so people like me are forced to live under some narcissistic sociopathic moron like Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.
If you and others want to live under them...fine.
The problem is when you force others to.
The Jews didn't vote for the NAZI party...they still had to be ruled by them though.
Thats the system you're arguing for and saying I should get involved in.
Yes but I could also extend my example like you would, and state there was something you disliked about all of those options. See why your logic fails?
But if you think about it, you've ceded control over your transportation at least for anything outside of walking/biking distance. The bus/train company determines what the schedule of travel is, and taxi's choose what kind of vehicle you ride in. By not choosing a car, you've actually ceded control to the bus/taxi/train companies.
Correction: There clearly aren't enough Ron Paul or Gary Johnson supporters who actually vote right no to win. All I hear is how good Johnson would be followed by a complain that their vote would be wasted, or people complaining that the government isn't limited enough by people who abstain from the system like you.
If you all voted, he'd be doing much better in the polls. Furthermore momemtum is a thing, even if you lost this election Libertarians would have more legitimacy next election. Republicans who don't vote third party "because their vote would be wasted" would consider it.
Essentially you're complaining about a system you aren't really trying to change. It's just whining at that point.
I wonder how many Jews didn't vote for Hindenburg (seriously, that was his name!) because their votes wouldn't matter?
It kind of seems ridiculous that we have to choose one person to make decisions on a plethora of issues.
To make it simple, if there are two candidates, and two issues, and I agree with one candidate's stance on one issue, and the other candidate's stance on the other issue, who should I choose?
With today's technology, there's no reason we should have to support an entire set of beliefs just to support the one or two issues we care about. We could just vote on each issue individually on the net.
The reason to not have everyone vote on an issue is to prevent mob rule. That is, if there were 50.1% socialists out there, we'd socialize everything because they'd win the vote.
That's why we have representatives. People have posited we have more of a parliament, however, where basically Trump, Clinton, Johnson and the Green Lady would all have the Executive position. In my mind that's what Congress is though...
Congratulations @irishvoluntary! You received a personal award!
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!