Which presidential candidate will you vote for?

You're free to vote for whoever you want, and if you agree mostly with a third-party then vote for them. But it won't change anything. Too pervasive.

  On 8/7/2012 at 12:10 PM, Iain C said:

BUT NO I would never elect someone into a position of power over me. That's a political belief that I won't compromise.

 

  On 8/7/2012 at 12:08 PM, compson said:

while if a majority voted for third parties it could at the very least be an improvement over the current situation.

 

It will never happen. And it's a serious waste of time and energy pursuing it. You seem really offended by this idea that voting for a third-party will never make a difference. Why are you so attached to it?

You are the one who seems so definite with what's the right and wrong way to change government and what is possible in the future. I'm just saying I am gonna vote for the person who is most like me. I already explained that I think it would be a long commitment and that the whole point is to encourage discussions like these with people.

Older generations see not voting as being rebel stoners. If you are all about organizing and being pro-active, I don't see how not voting is more pro-active. I mean ffs.

last post

I don't believe that capitalist parliamentary/presidential democracies are the best way to organise society, full-stop. I just don't see reform of the system as being a realistic way to fix it, and that's why I think voting is an irrelevance and a waste of time. But good luck to you anyway, you clearly believe strongly in it.

And not to drag this discussion out any further, but I'm not sure why you care what the "older generations" think, or why you care if someone considers you a rebel stoner.

Best of luck to not comprising on the "never elect someone into a position of power over me" government. That seems like the real 'naive' pipe dream here.

last post

I'd rather vote for Sarah Palin, but she isn't up for it. Mitt Romney it shall be (I side with the Republican party on 90%, I found out via isidewith.com)

  On 8/7/2012 at 12:27 PM, compson said:

Best of luck to not comprising on the "never elect someone into a position of power over me" government. That seems like the real 'naive' pipe dream here.

 

last post

It's not that hard not to vote.

RANDOM HIGHLIGHT

  On 8/7/2012 at 12:27 PM, compson said:

Best of luck to not comprising on the "never elect someone into a position of power over me" government. That seems like the real 'naive' pipe dream here.

 

last post

Actually it's VERY easy. Just never vote. YOU can elect someone into a position of power over me, but I won't be complicit in it.

Takes me 2 minutes to fill out my mail-in ballot I'd wager and here we are on watmm lol

last post

  On 8/7/2012 at 12:29 PM, Iain C said:

  On 8/7/2012 at 12:27 PM, compson said:

Best of luck to not comprising on the "never elect someone into a position of power over me" government. That seems like the real 'naive' pipe dream here.

 

last post

 

Actually it's VERY easy. Just never vote. YOU can elect someone into a position of power over me, but I won't be complicit in it.

You don't pay taxes?

Of course I pay taxes, I don't have a choice. Remind me when I voted for that again?

  On 8/7/2012 at 12:33 PM, Iain C said:

Of course I pay taxes, I don't have a choice. Remind me when I voted for that again?

My point is, you are complicit with people who hold power over you. Just cause you didn't voice your choice and pick your 'best' option doesn't mean you are somehow not complicit. If I vote for Jill and she loses am I complicit to whoever wins? Its the same situation... only difference is I was pro-active in trying to tilt the system in my direction.

It's a shit point. I pay my taxes because I don't want to go to prison, and because I agree that under our current form of government it's important to provide public services like welfare and healthcare. Of course you're "complicit" with the people who have power over you, it's impossible to live in a society like ours and NOT be.

But for me, voting would be like saying "I approve of this system and this is how I want things to be," which isn't true. I'd never willingly want to be "represented" by a politician, I'd rather represent myself.

Edit: that's just a point of principle and I understand that a lot of people wouldn't mind being represented by a politician, if that person fairly represented their views. I think this is a side-issue. My real point is that even if you'd happily be represented by somebody like Jill Stein, voting for her under the current system won't actually get you there.

How is voting for Jill Stein approving the status quo when she represents a party that has never held office as President? If you are talking about total dismantling of this government structure and stuff, well I don't see how thats gonna happen, unless its very gradual or if things turn to shit real quick. I just don't get the whole voting = bad mentality.

You know, if no-one voted, they'd still elect each other anyway, right?

  On 8/7/2012 at 12:46 PM, compson said:

If you are talking about total dismantling of this government structure and stuff, well I don't see how thats gonna happen, unless its very gradual or if things turn to shit real quick.

It might not happen in my lifetime or yours. It might not happen full-stop. But every successful bit of direct action that takes place from the ground up, outside of the governmental/parliamentary structure is a step in the right direction. And unlike slightly increasing the vote-share of a third party candidate, it actually has a REAL positive effect on society - just ask everyone who's NOT currently doing workfare for Holland & Barrett.

I know you're saying that you can do all that stuff and STILL vote for a candidate you like. And you can. But I won't, because I personally don't believe in the system of elected representatives we currently have, no matter who's filling the seats. That's why "voting = bad" for me (which by the way is a pretty reductive way of putting it).

Whether your vote is actually going to make a difference or not, that's where I disagree with you and it's one of the reasons why for me "voting = bad". I think we're going round in circles here. If I'm proven wrong in the next 50 years and third parties start making headway and toppling the entrenched two-party system, I owe you a beer.

I really don't know how to answer that

edit: @ Gary

.... its not about making a difference in like that my vote is gonna tip the scales and Jills gonna win with 51% or some nonsense... its about engaging in the process so you can be better at getting others to hear you out. When you approach it with such pessimism, that doesn't discourage people from making a choice and the current problem in politics is money talks. So its an information/marketing war... informing people who have a tradition of voting (they do think its the right thing to do) on other candidates that are actually more in tune with their actual beliefs offers a better chance of change than not engaging in the process and calling the whole thing a waste of time.

I don't think my view is pessimistic at all. What's pessimistic about actively looking for a better way to achieve a fairer society? The only thing I'm pessimistic about is parliamentary democracy. That's not an apathetic position. Sure, I don't engage with the process - but that's because I think it's better to work outside it. Even in terms of informing people and getting the word out that there are alternatives.

I'm loathe to bring em up because it's so divisive and I don't wholeheartedly support them, but look at Occupy for example. Right away, anti-capitalist ideas and principles were in the public eye and public debate. Of course that was shut down and manipulated by the media pretty quickly, but I'd still like to see a green party activist achieve anything like it by participating in the parliamentary/presidential system.

I don't believe in reform from the inside. I simply don't. It has NEVER worked historically. Real change comes from the ground.

never say never, the transition from maoism to so called deng-ism in china was a very much inside struggle which benefited the populace in many ways.

In fairness I don't have any major understanding of China's economic and social reforms in that period, but while the lot of the populace may have improved in some ways I don't think it necessarily reflects a much freer or fairer society for the majority. But like I say, my knowledge is basically non-existent...

I guess what I mean is that most major social movements of the 20th century - civil rights in the US, gay rights in the US and elsewhere, the Indian independence movement etc. - have started as grass-roots protest movements that threaten and are repressed by the state.

It's only as they gather momentum and become a threat that the state begins to change to accommodate them (although often in a watered-down, limited way that seeks to depoliticise and neutralise dissent).

  On 8/7/2012 at 1:23 PM, eugene said:

never say never, the transition from maoism to so called deng-ism in china was a very much inside struggle which benefited the populace in many ways.

Wasn't that more of a top-down transition rather than a bottom-up which one of the C's are arguing for?

yeah it was exactly that, the point is that it benefited the people tremendously. a reform from the inside in which iain doesn't believe apparently.

And yet normal working people in China are still exploited by a totalitarian state with extremely limited freedom to dissent, organise politically and express themselves. I wouldn't say reform has achieved that much.

compared to the mao years the current (and basically late 70s and on) situation in china is heaven on earth.

there's a really good 3 part doc about 20th china that's pretty much serves as a video textbook for china studies undergrads, it's called china: a century in revolution, check it.

Be that as it may, I wouldn't want to live there. I still don't think it's an argument for reform from within. If anything it makes my point - you're basically trading a shit system for a similar system that's perhaps slightly less shit, for some people at least.

And as it wasn't instituted by the ballot box (afaik, correct me if I'm wrong) I think it's of limited relevance to whether compson's vote helps or not. I would imagine the reforms were more likely instituted for economic reasons - or to quell the possibility of popular revolt. Again I'm speculating here, I don't know the history.

I'll check that documentary when I've got a spare evening, sounds interesting.