Did you/do you vote? Why or why not?

[Greg]

Do you usually vote at local or national elections? Why or why not?

[WanderingOak]

I did, probably because it my civic duty more than anything else. I don't care for either party, but care less for those currently in power. Politics disgusts me.

[KevinG]

I don't feel its anybody's duty to vote.

It is most certainly not your duty if you aren't educated, don't know/understand the issues, or are voting for emotional reasons rather than logical reasons.

I vote in the midterm elections because they are the most important. I vote presidential as well, but I make sure to get to the midterms every 2 years.

I also feel that if you don't vote, you can't complain.

[Trina]

I usually do, but I didn't this time because my ID expired and I didn't realize it until it was too late to get it renewed before the election.

[kthdsn]

I have never voted. I don't agree with the whole concept of government. I don't see why a particular person or group of people should be in charge when they completely disregard the views of the people they are supposed to be looking after.

I am just not interested in which person or party is messing things up.

[RandomJohn]

I did, because I wanted gridlock in Congress. Seriously, at this point right now the best thing of for the branches of government to be split, so at least people will have to debate.

[Brien]

I also didn't vote for similar reasons as kthdsn. I refuse to give legitmacy to a government. I've been told that it's not pragmatic. But what's so damn sensible about voting for the lesser evil? How could I be outraged at what government does if I'm one of those that gave it the power?

[joelyle]

I chose not to choose...
I prefer not to accept polarization. This is becoming a stumbling block, isn't it?

Are you Republican or Democrat... well, neither? Maybe one of us will run and govern under the Consciousness Party? I guess Libertarian would be the closest party to that? Politics/foreign policy have been out of whack since the US intervened in WW 1.

[Matthew Shea]

I personally felt the President needed to be put in check. He probably should have been 6 years ago for that matter. I feel that voting overall is important since it's an important way for citizens to express their opinions, even if you're only voting against the status quo (which is what I did). I can't say I'm thrilled by any of the politicians out there, really, but staying silent and not voting simply allows everyone else to make your choices for you. I personally would like to see more political parties representing a wider range of beliefs than the current system does.

[joanmhe]

I voted - I always vote, cannot imagine why so many do not. Some people think that it doesn't make a difference who wins, but there are so many important issues that are being decided every day that affect us one way or another. Iraq, supreme court decisions, what would we be doing now if Gore had won, not Bush?

[KevinG]

For those who don't believe in government. Could I ask you what you'd rather have?

Anarachy?

[Natsu]

As for me, I luckily live in a non-presidential democracy, which makes things easier. It means that the Parliament, and not the president, has the power to pass laws. As a result, you don't have to vote to any of the two major parties (though we have two major parties). You can vote to any of the smaller ones, and if the small parties have enough seats, they can make a difference in the politics of the country.

So far, it's been fourteen years in which none of the parties, wether mainstream or small have been trustworthy... But I always vote anyway.

You see, my country had to endure a civil war (from 1936 to 1939), then a famine (because just after the war, Europe got into WWII and no food or supplies could enter the country), and then 39 years of dictatorship, plust three of transition, to have a democracy, that begun in 1978. People in my country (some of them close relatives) have fought, have bled, have died, have suffered hunger and repression, to get us here. I am not insulting or devaluating their suffering by not voting. I always go to vote. If I think the governing party is extremely bad, I vote against it. If I think none of the parties is good enough, I vote for any of the ones who won't have power, just to bother the major parties and force them to dialogate with someone else. But I think that being informed and going to vote is a must. It's a right that's been paid with blood, and I'm going to use it as much as I can, even if it's only reduced to my holy right of kicking the ass of whoever's ruling at the moment. We can't create good politicians, but at least we can fire the bad ones

And some of us are trying to create good politicians, too

[JohnLong]

Kevin,

You ask what we would prefer. I can't speak for everyone, though I'm VERY encouraged to see there are others, but I would say that once we get enough aware people in the world, government will very naturally go away. I'm not 100% sure what it would be replaced with, but most of what governments do these days would be replaced by voluntary co-operation, perhaps backed up with some "peer pressure". Take a look at how the Amish handle things for some (pretty darn) rough ideas.

There are some big questions as to what aware people would generally agree on, particularly when it comes to property, but I just can't see us supporting governments. Ultimately, governments come down to one group of people telling another how to run their lives, and if they don't comply, responding with some form of violence. It shouldn't matter if the group of people doing the telling is larger, what matters is the violence.

John

[Brien]

Hi Natsu. Sure seems like there are lots of Spaniards on this board.

I'd like to point out that though today's democracy is definately better than the 40 years of fascism there were before, it is not what many of our grandfathers fought for when they resisted Franco in the Civil War. I dont see how voting honors their sacrifice.

@JohnLong and KevinG: I don't really know what I'd have in place of government, perhaps just a different sort of government. Minimal and decentralized, if any at all. As little coercion and violence as possible. So yes, I advocate anarchy.

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by JohnLong

Kevin,

You ask what we would prefer. I can't speak for everyone, though I'm VERY encouraged to see there are others, but I would say that once we get enough aware people in the world, government will very naturally go away. I'm not 100% sure what it would be replaced with, but most of what governments do these days would be replaced by voluntary co-operation, perhaps backed up with some "peer pressure". Take a look at how the Amish handle things for some (pretty darn) rough ideas.

There are some big questions as to what aware people would generally agree on, particularly when it comes to property, but I just can't see us supporting governments. Ultimately, governments come down to one group of people telling another how to run their lives, and if they don't comply, responding with some form of violence. It shouldn't matter if the group of people doing the telling is larger, what matters is the violence.

John

So you would push for a Utopia instead of what we currently have? That is a good dream, I just don't know how realistic it is.

Perhaps you should give me more information on how to get all these people to follow your schedule?

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by Brien

Hi Natsu. Sure seems like there are lots of Spaniards on this board.

I'd like to point out that though today's democracy is definately better than the 40 years of fascism there were before, it is not what many of our grandfathers fought for when they resisted Franco in the Civil War. I dont see how voting honors their sacrifice.

@JohnLong and KevinG: I don't really know what I'd have in place of government, perhaps just a different sort of government. Minimal and decentralized, if any at all. As little coercion and violence as possible. So yes, I advocate anarchy.

Can you give me an example of a state our country which uses anarchy as its form of government? Can you then give me an example of any time in history where anarchy has produced a non-violent society, or perhaps just a reason as to why anarchy would lead to non-violence?

[jpfieber]

I wasn't political until the last few years. Politician is just another word for 'liar', and I didn't feel I should have to vote for the 'lesser of two evils'. That was until recently, when my eyes were opened to just how evil it can get. I just voted in my first mid-term election and was happy with the outcome. I agree with one of the earlier posters, I'd rather have our politicians locked in debate than free to do the unchecked damage they've done over the past few years. As far as party affiliation, that's probably the worst part of politics. People seem to think that they have to choose one, and that all of their beliefs must somehow fall within the definition of the party. I personally agree and disagree with parts of each major party, but our system isn't designed to handle that kind of rational thought.

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by jpfieber

I wasn't political until the last few years. Politician is just another word for 'liar', and I didn't feel I should have to vote for the 'lesser of two evils'. That was until recently, when my eyes were opened to just how evil it can get. I just voted in my first mid-term election and was happy with the outcome. I agree with one of the earlier posters, I'd rather have our politicians locked in debate than free to do the unchecked damage they've done over the past few years. As far as party affiliation, that's probably the worst part of politics. People seem to think that they have to choose one, and that all of their beliefs must somehow fall within the definition of the party. I personally agree and disagree with parts of each major party, but our system isn't designed to handle that kind of rational thought.

Sure it is. It is called a third party, or a fourth party. Libertarians share some views from both sides, and hold the belief that the country should actually be run based on the document that is was founded upon.

The system doesn't fail the people, the people fail the system.

[Keith]

Yes, I voted. It's a legal requirement to do so in my country.

In the context of the US, if you don't want to vote for either of the two main parties why not vote for someone else? I believe you even have write-in votes if none of the candidates grabs you?

Incidentally, your electoral system seems grossly unfair to me. In Australia we can vote for the party or individual we really want to see elected, and if they don't get in our vote then trickles down to our designated 'lesser evil' party. This seems a lot more reasonable ; we're not forced to choose between the person we really want to vote for and the 'lesser evil' - we can vote "both - in that order".

Originally Posted by KevinG

Can you give me an example of a state our country which uses anarchy as its form of government? Can you then give me an example of any time in history where anarchy has produced a non-violent society, or perhaps just a reason as to why anarchy would lead to non-violence?

According to Google, there are historical examples but I'm more interested in future examples.

The more I think about this issue, the more it seems to me that:
(a) a successful Anarchy would naturally emerge from a population of Awakened/Fully Conscious people; and
(b) Without a population of Fully Conscious people Anarchy is unlikely to work.

Imagine collecting together 1,000 (or 100,000 or 10,000,000!) people like Steve Pavlina. Can you imagine them degenerating into chaos? I know I can't...

[KevinG]

Studies in sociology suggest that an organized social anarchy that makes progress in any way is not possible.

Partly the reason why even the definition of Anarchy includes the descriptions:

confusion; chaos; disorder

How do you expect a society to function without laws? And how are you going to make sure that society is "awake and conscious" without them?

[Brien]

Originally Posted by KevinG

Studies in sociology suggest that an organized social anarchy that makes progress in any way is not possible.

Partly the reason why even the definition of Anarchy includes the descriptions:

confusion; chaos; disorder

How do you expect a society to function without laws? And how are you going to make sure that society is "awake and conscious" without them?

I'd be interested to read more about those studies. I didnt know there were many sociology studies relating to anarchism, much less any deeming it impossible.

Also, all anarchism means is "without ruler." It's unfortunate that in English anarchism has those connotations of chaos and disorder. I suppose that's what makes people adopt even more confusing terms such as "libertarian socialism."

Anyway, for an example of anarchism at work, look up the social revolution that took place in Spain in 1936-37. Barcelona in particular. Can't say that violence didn't take place, but also can't say that it was as a result of anarchism, not in spite of it.

Keith, I agree that anarchy probably requires an "awake" population. People who don't need Men With Guns to act like decent human beings. Doesn't seem so farfetched to me.

[jpfieber]

Originally Posted by KevinG

Sure it is. It is called a third party, or a fourth party. Libertarians share some views from both sides, and hold the belief that the country should actually be run based on the document that is was founded upon.

The system doesn't fail the people, the people fail the system.

I hear ya with the other party thing, in theory, it's what I'd like to do (dare I admit I voted for Ross Perot). But in a major election where the main objective was to stop the damage, a non-vote or a third party vote would have been the same as a vote for the incumbants.

Come 2008 presidential race, I'd love to think that their could be a third party option, but come on, we all know that if someone even comes close to being realistic in the race, they will almost certainly be stealing votes from the Democratic side. It seems that in the politial spectrum, republicans represent 25%, and democrats 75%. All the third parties seem to erupt from a democratic perspective (which helps explain why democrats don't have a clear cut agenda like the republicans do, they span such a wide range of beliefs that of course they won't all agree). With democratic voters seemingly less motivated than republican voters, the races come out closer than they should. I think if every one in the country was educated as to what each party stood for, and they all voted, democrates would win hands down (assuming the standard two party race).

Getting back to your point about a third or fourth party, how do we get there from here? Currently, voting for a third party is a 'throw away vote', equivalent to either a non-vote, or a negative vote from the next nearest party to your preference. Perot got 20% or so, which was unheard of until then. Most parties can't even qualify for a debate. How do we change the process so other parties with realistic goals can be a part of the system, but we aren't overtaken by every "Joe for President" party that divides the nation into a thousand pieces?

[Keith]

Originally Posted by KevinG

Studies in sociology suggest that an organized social anarchy that makes progress in any way is not possible.

I'd be interested to see the studies, too. I note, however, that sociology studies groups of 'ordinary' people (ie. contemporary society) ; I doubt the findings extend to never-before-existing groups of extraordinary people.

Originally Posted by KevinG

How do you expect a society to function without laws? And how are you going to make sure that society is "awake and conscious" without them?

If there were no law against it, would you kill your neighbour, rape his wife and daughter and take all his stuff? If you're anything like me, of course you wouldn't! In fact, the thought probably disgusts you! (Conversely, if you were the sort of person who would engage in such acts, I doubt that "there's a law against it!" would stop you).

As the Dao De Jing says "Codes of morality and justice are created once people lose sight of the Way". When you need to tell people that killing each other is wrong, something has gone seriously awry!

Re: your second question: You don't need laws to make sure that society is Conscious and Awake, because it's populated with Conscious and Awake people. As Steve demonstrates, once people become Conscious and Aware they form connections with others and feel a drive to help others.

A populace of Conscious and Awake people would be self-reinforcing. Sociology tells us that people desire to be like the norm; even if the norm seems extraordinary to us. And, As Steve demonstrates, once people become Conscious and Aware they feel a drive to help others ; community members will be driven to help 'bootstrap' each other as necessary.

Criminals are almost all people who aren't having their needs met; be they needs for survival, security, medical assistance, emotional control or self-esteem. ie. Criminals are people who need help because they're at a lower level of consciousness. Can you really envision an empathic, self-responsible, emotionally-stable person with good esteem and strong ties to the community (whose survival meeds are all met) becoming a career criminal?

If society responded to crime with a "wow, this person needs help" rather than a "Quick, jail them, they want to take our stuff!!" I think you'd see crime become almost non-existent.

Similarly, I think such a society would focus strongly on the development of children. It would be very important to the community that children grow up being the best that they can be (ie. Conscious and Aware) and the education system would support that. I imagine they'd also make it a priority to ensure availability of healthy food to everyone. etc. etc.

Originally Posted by KevinG

So you would push for a Utopia instead of what we currently have? That is a good dream, I just don't know how realistic it is.
Perhaps you should give me more information on how to get all these people to follow your schedule?

It's not something you 'push for' on a 'schedule' - it's something that emerges naturally once you bring together enough people who are Conscious. Having paternalistic leaders tell them what to do becomes redundant, because they're not children ; they're responsible, Conscious, self-driven adults.

P.S. This anarchy stuff is kind of off-topic - could a mod split it from the rest of the thread, please?

[DmitryDavydov]

Originally Posted by Greg

Do you usually vote at local or national elections? Why or why not?

Electins and voitng ain't nothing but a joke. The political system is clearly manipulated. It's PLAIN DUMB to believe in BS about "civic duty", etc. When you vote, it's an act of giving an appearance of "just and fair elections".

Come on, when you have a dad president and a son president and may have a husband president and a wife president (talking Clintons here), doesn't it show that the choice ALREADY HAS BEEN MADE FOR YOU, all you need to do is to show up and pick one of the two pre-selected candidates. That's not choice, that's a scam.

That's my opinion.

[Michael Chui]

I'm curious.

How many of the people who think voting is useless use Google, Wikipedia, del.icio.us, digg, YouTube, and so on?

Each of these websites, like the mechanism of the election itself, is a democratic process. Some of them are more similar to the election than others, but they are all aggregators of opinion, in one form or another. Aggregation, in these cases, is a mediator of trust. It's hard to trust a single stranger, but it's much easier to trust a million of them, because it's far less likely that they'll be wrong.

Disagree with the masses? Go and convince them. Ultimately, the American system is in fact run by the American public. It is entirely possible to do something about an opinion you don't like, by driving the public in the right direction. Of course, the actual mechanics of doing so are very difficult, but if you really do care about it, that shouldn't stop you.

And I think I need a separate post to rub Keith the wrong way again.

[Michael Chui]

I continued the anarchy thread over here: Anarchy - Infeasible or Inevitable?

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by DmitryDavydov

Electins and voitng ain't nothing but a joke. The political system is clearly manipulated. It's PLAIN DUMB to believe in BS about "civic duty", etc. When you vote, it's an act of giving an appearance of "just and fair elections".

Come on, when you have a dad president and a son president and may have a husband president and a wife president (talking Clintons here), doesn't it show that the choice ALREADY HAS BEEN MADE FOR YOU, all you need to do is to show up and pick one of the two pre-selected candidates. That's not choice, that's a scam.

That's my opinion.

Careful my friend, you are walking a fine line between making your point and attacking other people's point of view personally.

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by Keith

I'd be interested to see the studies, too. I note, however, that sociology studies groups of 'ordinary' people (ie. contemporary society) ; I doubt the findings extend to never-before-existing groups of extraordinary people.


If there were no law against it, would you kill your neighbour, rape his wife and daughter and take all his stuff? If you're anything like me, of course you wouldn't! In fact, the thought probably disgusts you! (Conversely, if you were the sort of person who would engage in such acts, I doubt that "there's a law against it!" would stop you).

As the Dao De Jing says "Codes of morality and justice are created once people lose sight of the Way". When you need to tell people that killing each other is wrong, something has gone seriously awry!

Re: your second question: You don't need laws to make sure that society is Conscious and Awake, because it's populated with Conscious and Awake people. As Steve demonstrates, once people become Conscious and Aware they form connections with others and feel a drive to help others.

A populace of Conscious and Awake people would be self-reinforcing. Sociology tells us that people desire to be like the norm; even if the norm seems extraordinary to us. And, As Steve demonstrates, once people become Conscious and Aware they feel a drive to help others ; community members will be driven to help 'bootstrap' each other as necessary.

Criminals are almost all people who aren't having their needs met; be they needs for survival, security, medical assistance, emotional control or self-esteem. ie. Criminals are people who need help because they're at a lower level of consciousness. Can you really envision an empathic, self-responsible, emotionally-stable person with good esteem and strong ties to the community (whose survival meeds are all met) becoming a career criminal?

If society responded to crime with a "wow, this person needs help" rather than a "Quick, jail them, they want to take our stuff!!" I think you'd see crime become almost non-existent.

Similarly, I think such a society would focus strongly on the development of children. It would be very important to the community that children grow up being the best that they can be (ie. Conscious and Aware) and the education system would support that. I imagine they'd also make it a priority to ensure availability of healthy food to everyone. etc. etc.


It's not something you 'push for' on a 'schedule' - it's something that emerges naturally once you bring together enough people who are Conscious. Having paternalistic leaders tell them what to do becomes redundant, because they're not children ; they're responsible, Conscious, self-driven adults.

P.S. This anarchy stuff is kind of off-topic - could a mod split it from the rest of the thread, please?

I appreciate your detailed explanation. Unfortunately, you haven't told me how you are going to create an entire society that is "awake and conscious?"

Until you do, I'm afraid your argument doesn't carry much weight. It is easy to say "if everything works perfectly then my plan will work perfectly." Well of course, but how do you logically expect everything to work perfectly?

[Brutha]

Until you do, I'm afraid your argument doesn't carry much weight. It is easy to say "if everything works perfectly then my plan will work perfectly." Well of course, but how do you logically expect everything to work perfectly?

In addition, wouldn't it be logical to give the current democratic system the legitimation by voting when it is the best system that is possible with the current population?

[songwriter]

I don't vote.
My vote is a one in some milions part of the result. So almost nothing.
It's not worth the hearing of the different parties statements, (THE NEWS!) etc.
I don't think it's not worth even going to the place where you vote.

Yeah, now some could come with the statement: "and what if everyone did like you?"
Everybody's not gonna do like me.
It's like if I decide not to have children humankind will dissappear. And it's more likely we'll have 8 billions people soon.
If I cut my hair, people's not gonna cut their hair tomorrow.
And for me it's a torture to hear politicians to make a decisions or so. I can only vote AGAINST the one I like the less (or may I say I hate the most)... but not because I like some option, and it's disgusting to give your vote to someone you don't trust at all only to make other lose.
Better not voting.
Let the people deciding for themselves, I'm not gonna be part of it.