| |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| Character & Contribution Values, integrity, finding your purpose, living your purpose, serving the greater good, making a difference, changing the world, charity, polarity, lightworkers, darkworkers |
|
Welcome to the Personal Development for Smart People Forums, the place for lively, intelligent discussion of all personal growth issues -- physical, mental, financial, social, emotional, spiritual, and more. You're currently viewing as a guest, which gives you limited read-only access. By joining our free community, you'll be able to post your own messages, access many members-only features, see the new messages posted since your last visit, and of course remove this header message. Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please join today. If you arrived here from a search engine, you may want to explore the main site first, which includes hundreds of deep and insightful articles on a variety of personal development topics. |
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
11-08-2006, 12:58 AM
| |||
| |||
 Did you/do you vote? Why or why not? Do you usually vote at local or national elections? Why or why not?
__________________ Devote each day to the object then in time and every evening will find something done. -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe      |
|
11-08-2006, 01:10 AM
| |||
| |||
 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. |
|
11-08-2006, 01:31 AM
| |||
| |||
| 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. |
|
11-09-2006, 06:41 PM
| |||
| |||
| 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.
__________________ ~ Trina ~ Contrary to Reality "Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely! In broad daylight! Openly wearing the symbols of their religion…. perhaps around their necks? And maybe — dare I dream it? — maybe one day there can be an openly Christian President. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively." — Jon Stewart |
|
11-09-2006, 06:47 PM
| |||
| |||
| 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. |
|
11-09-2006, 07:02 PM
| |||
| |||
| 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.
__________________ Every thing is always in sync, even if it doesn't seem like it. I find I can tell that my spiritual side is working well when I notice the synchronicities everywhere! -- Court  |
|
11-09-2006, 07:52 PM
| |||
| |||
| 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? |
|
11-09-2006, 08:00 PM
| |||
| |||
| I want a third party... 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. |
|
11-09-2006, 08:05 PM
| |||
| |||
| 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. |
|
11-09-2006, 08:09 PM
| |||
| |||
| 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? |
|
11-09-2006, 09:31 PM
| |||
| |||
| 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 |
|
11-10-2006, 07:15 PM
| |||
| |||
| Life without Government 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 |
|
11-10-2006, 08:59 PM
| |||
| |||
| 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.
__________________ -Brien "The greatest victory is to defeat one's self" -Pedro Calderón de la Barca |
|
11-10-2006, 09:40 PM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
Perhaps you should give me more information on how to get all these people to follow your schedule? |
|
11-10-2006, 09:42 PM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
|
|
11-10-2006, 10:08 PM
| |||
| |||
| 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. |
|
11-11-2006, 02:46 AM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
The system doesn't fail the people, the people fail the system. |
|
11-11-2006, 02:49 AM
| |||
| |||
| 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". Quote:
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...
__________________ When people see things as beautiful, ugliness is created. When people see things as good, evil is created. When the way is forgotten, 'morality' and 'piety' need to be taught. -Dao De Jing, Chapter 2 Last edited by Keith : 11-11-2006 at 03:12 AM. Reason: Forgot a bit. :) |
|
11-11-2006, 04:05 AM
| |||
| |||
| 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? |
|
11-11-2006, 06:33 AM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
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.
__________________ -Brien "The greatest victory is to defeat one's self" -Pedro Calderón de la Barca |
|
11-11-2006, 06:45 AM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
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? |