Why does everyone think democracy is so great?

[Infected Mushroom]

Okay.

Well history said he should have run (he won and changed things). The thing is, that isn't an option for most of us for a variety of social, economic, personal reasons.

But why do you have such a distain for democracy and voting? And running for office is something anyone can do. You start locally.

Well first thing you need is money and time, I don't have either to devote to politics.

[San Lumen]

But why do you have such a distain for democracy and voting? And running for office is something anyone can do. You start locally.

Well first thing you need is money and time, I don't have either to devote to politics.

Ok fine but why not vote? You can't take 30 mins out of your day to decide your leaders? Many people around the world dont have that right.

[Infected Mushroom]

Well first thing you need is money and time, I don't have either to devote to politics.

Ok fine but why not vote? You can't take 30 mins out of your day to decide your leaders? Many people around the world dont have that right.

my vote would not decide anything

even if it could decide anything, its only who gets put into power, not the actual decisions themselves

[San Lumen]

Ok fine but why not vote? You can't take 30 mins out of your day to decide your leaders? Many people around the world dont have that right.

my vote would not decide anything

even if it could decide anything, its only who gets put into power, not the actual decisions themselves

So unless someone casts the deciding vote its pointless to vote?

And that's what a democracy is you vote for people to make decisions for you. If you dont like their decisions vote them out.

[Infected Mushroom]

my vote would not decide anything

even if it could decide anything, its only who gets put into power, not the actual decisions themselves

So unless someone casts the deciding vote its pointless to vote?

And that's what a democracy is you vote for people to make decisions for you. If you dont like their decisions vote them out.

For me personally yes. If I spent the time voting and my vote decided nothing than it is empirically a waste of time. I would have been better off doing something I enjoy more with the free time.

[San Lumen]

So unless someone casts the deciding vote its pointless to vote?

And that's what a democracy is you vote for people to make decisions for you. If you dont like their decisions vote them out.

For me personally yes. If I spent the time voting and my vote decided nothing than it is empirically a waste of time. I would have been better off doing something I enjoy more with the free time.

So why should anyone vote then if their one vote won't personally decide the election? Why bother having elections? Im sorry you can't take 30 mins out of your day to cast a vote for your member of parliament provincial or federal or mayor of your city.

I shouldnt bother voting for city council next month because my one vote for one of the candidates in my district won't decide the election?
And the general in November is a formality. I shouldn't vote in that either because its all but guaranteed that the candidate i vote for in the primary will win?

[Infected Mushroom]

For me personally yes. If I spent the time voting and my vote decided nothing than it is empirically a waste of time. I would have been better off doing something I enjoy more with the free time.

So why should anyone vote then if their one vote won't personally decide the election? Why bother having elections? Im sorry you can't take 30 mins out of your day to cast a vote for your member of parliament provincial or federal or mayor of your city.

I shouldnt bother voting for city council next month because my one vote for one of the candidates in my district won't decide the election?
And the general in November is a formality. I shouldn't vote in that either because its all but guaranteed that the candidate i vote for in the primary will win?

well... what do you expect your one vote will do though?

[San Lumen]

So why should anyone vote then if their one vote won't personally decide the election? Why bother having elections? Im sorry you can't take 30 mins out of your day to cast a vote for your member of parliament provincial or federal or mayor of your city.

I shouldnt bother voting for city council next month because my one vote for one of the candidates in my district won't decide the election?
And the general in November is a formality. I shouldn't vote in that either because its all but guaranteed that the candidate i vote for in the primary will win?

well... what do you expect your one vote will do though?

Its a vote for city council and mayor thats what it is.

I dont care that my one vote won't decide the election and it shouldn't to you. Its a ridiculous argument to make that my one vote won't make a difference so why vote and what do I expect it to do.

If you dont participate in the political process and vote for city council or for your legislature you dont get to complain about what they do or dont do.

And what i should have said was the candidate who wins the primary will win the general not nessaceraily the person i voted for in the primary.

[Infected Mushroom]

well... what do you expect your one vote will do though?

Its a vote for city council and mayor thats what it is.

I dont care that my one vote won't decide the election and it shouldn't to you. Its a ridiculous argument to make that my one vote won't make a difference so why vote and what do I expect it to do.

If you dont participate in the political process and vote for city council or for your legislature you dont get to complain about what they do or dont do.

And what i should have said was the candidate who wins the primary will win the general not nessaceraily the person i voted for in the primary.

Why do you feel that not voting means that you don't have a right to complain?

Do you vote only to keep your right to complain?

Its constitutionally protected regardless.

[San Lumen]

Its a vote for city council and mayor thats what it is.

I dont care that my one vote won't decide the election and it shouldn't to you. Its a ridiculous argument to make that my one vote won't make a difference so why vote and what do I expect it to do.

If you dont participate in the political process and vote for city council or for your legislature you dont get to complain about what they do or dont do.

And what i should have said was the candidate who wins the primary will win the general not nessaceraily the person i voted for in the primary.

Why do you feel that not voting means that you don't have a right to complain?

Do you vote only to keep your right to complain?

Its constitutionally protected regardless.

technically speaking yes. But i feel that if you dont vote for city council, mayor or legislature or whatever else is up for election you dont have the right to complain about what that person does in office because you didn't vote in the election and therefore in my view dont have a say.

I vote in every single election and everything on the ballot every year unless a specific election is unopposed which happens on occasion. In that case I leave that part blank.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

The problem with democracy is that for it to really work, eligible citizens would have to be keenly interested and constantly involved in politics so that their contribution really matters. Contributing 30 minutes to cast a piece of paper in a box once every 4 years certainly isn't involvement by any reasonable standard.

The original Athenian democracy, for example, held several public meetings a month for citizens to debate and vote on political matters. The Athenians went as far as to pay the working-class citizens the equivalent of their daily wage so that they would suffer no loss by partaking. Citizens were also actively expected to exercise their rights, those who refused to being ridiculed and called "idiots" (the original meaning being a politically-apathetic person).

The problem with this kind of democracy is that it is only practical to implement in relatively small populations, i.e., cities and city-states, the large nation-states of later ages being either traditional monarchies or republics. However, with the advances in digital technology, Athenian-style democracies may yet again become practical on the larger scale.

But since actual citizen involvement beyond voting is neither expected nor desired in the existing system where democratic processes are mere tools of legitimizing the power of a plutocratic oligarchy, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Nor would the implementation of direct democracy really be desirable these days, when the voting rights are extended to just about anyone in the fickle dumbed-down politically-illiterate mob pretentiously calling itself "the people".

[Infected Mushroom]

Why do you feel that not voting means that you don't have a right to complain?

Do you vote only to keep your right to complain?

Its constitutionally protected regardless.

technically speaking yes. But i feel that if you dont vote for city council, mayor or legislature or whatever else is up for election you dont have the right to complain about what that person does in office because you didn't vote in the election and therefore in my view dont have a say.

I vote in every single election and everything on the ballot every year unless a specific election is unopposed which happens on occasion. In that case I leave that part blank.

why though?

this isn't the case

your right to free speech (to complain) and your right to have your own thoughts isn't conditional on whether or not you exercise some pointless right to vote; however, your free time is being eroded

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

technically speaking yes. But i feel that if you dont vote for city council, mayor or legislature or whatever else is up for election you dont have the right to complain about what that person does in office because you didn't vote in the election and therefore in my view dont have a say.

I vote in every single election and everything on the ballot every year unless a specific election is unopposed which happens on occasion. In that case I leave that part blank.

why though?

this isn't the case

your right to free speech (to complain) and your right to have your own thoughts isn't conditional on whether or not you exercise some pointless right to vote; however, your free time is being eroded

The right to vote is the ultimate right to self-expression. If people cannot have a say in the democratic process, then their freedom of expression is enormously curtailed. Besides, in practise, a non-democratic state always devolves the human rights protection in a country. The neccesary safeguards of a just and legal society, being the Constitution and the independent courts, depend on a checked power on the executive. If the executive controls the legislature, there is no use for an independent judiciary.

I'll look up some specific case law from the ECHR, they make a pretty good case for democracy and human rights.

[Infected Mushroom]

why though?

this isn't the case

your right to free speech (to complain) and your right to have your own thoughts isn't conditional on whether or not you exercise some pointless right to vote; however, your free time is being eroded

The right to vote is the ultimate right to self-expression. If people cannot have a say in the democratic process, then their freedom of expression is enormously curtailed. Besides, in practise, a non-democratic state always devolves the human rights protection in a country. The neccesary safeguards of a just and legal society, being the Constitution and the independent courts, depend on a checked power on the executive. If the executive controls the legislature, there is no use for an independent judiciary.

I'll look up some specific case law from the ECHR, they make a pretty good case for democracy and human rights.

In my view its not the ultimate version of self-expression. That honour would go to something else, like creating artwork or writing a book.

Voting is in many situations a form of submission... its saying to the government "I know my vote won't change anything but I recognise your right to rule over me and I will certify, along with millions of others, that one of these two political party rep is a true representation of what I am and what this country needs."

Its the new era's mockery of a tribute ceremony to the gods or an oath of fealty. And people see it as self-expression or freedom? Come now.

I'd rather kneel and swear allegiance to a king or a lord because at least that has more class then this.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

The right to vote is the ultimate right to self-expression. If people cannot have a say in the democratic process, then their freedom of expression is enormously curtailed. Besides, in practise, a non-democratic state always devolves the human rights protection in a country. The neccesary safeguards of a just and legal society, being the Constitution and the independent courts, depend on a checked power on the executive. If the executive controls the legislature, there is no use for an independent judiciary.

I'll look up some specific case law from the ECHR, they make a pretty good case for democracy and human rights.

In my view its not the ultimate version of self-expression. That honour would go to something else, like creating artwork or writing a book.

Voting is in many situations a form of submission... its saying to the government "I know my vote won't change anything but I recognise your right to rule over me and I will certify, along with millions of others, that one of these two political party rep is a true representation of what I am and what this country needs."

Its the new era's mockery of a tribute ceremony to the gods or an oath of fealty. And people see it as self-expression or freedom? Come now.

I'd rather kneel and swear allegiance to a king or a lord because at least that has more class then this.

You accept a government's power over you, whether you vote or not. While you personally probably don't get to change the results, that's the whole idea. Not one person is powerful enough to bring about change. It's a collaborative effort of millions. You sumbit either way, better to have a say in the outcome than not.

And, of course, the freedom to self-expression in a human rights sense is not the same as writing a book or making a painting. I hope that that was obvious due to the context of the discussion.

[Gim]

More freedom and power to people. People like freedom and power.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

More freedom and power to people. People like freedom and power.

It's almost as good as bread and land, but clearly superior to bread and circuses.

[Gim]

More freedom and power to people. People like freedom and power.

It's almost as good as bread and land, but clearly superior to bread and circuses.

However, you need to earn them yourself; that's the problem.

[Herador]

More freedom and power to people. People like freedom and power.

It's almost as good as bread and land, but clearly superior to bread and circuses.

I don't think that second quote works as well as it used to. If the Fed gave me a loaf of wheat bread and sent me to Barnum and Bailey's for the afternoon I think the most I'd be is annoyed.

[Gim]

It's almost as good as bread and land, but clearly superior to bread and circuses.

I don't think that second quote works as well as it used to. If the Fed gave me a loaf of wheat bread and sent me to Barnum and Bailey's for the afternoon I think the most I'd be is annoyed.

Circuses are pretty much outdated. Who watches circuses when you can watch movies on your TV?

[Camicon]

I don't think that second quote works as well as it used to. If the Fed gave me a loaf of wheat bread and sent me to Barnum and Bailey's for the afternoon I think the most I'd be is annoyed.

Circuses are pretty much outdated. Who watches circuses when you can watch movies on your TV?

No they aren't, the venue and acts have just changed. Now, instead of going to a fairground to watch a lion tamer, you fire up your computer and look at Trump's Twitter feed.

[Gim]

Circuses are pretty much outdated. Who watches circuses when you can watch movies on your TV?

No they aren't, the venue and acts have just changed. Now, instead of going to a fairground to watch a lion tamer, you fire up your computer and look at Trump's Twitter feed.

One-way ticket to impeachment.

[Albrenia]

KFC and the Internet just doesn't have the same ring to it that Bread and Circuses does.

[Deutsch Mitteleuropa]

To rebuke the OP's metaphor (may have been done 625 times already, but still), the captain on a ship does not on his own decide whether the people on the ship live or die. Besides, the peasant mod would apply only to a crazed, bent-on-directness democracy where every peasant in said mob excercised an equal say in legislative and executive power. That's the whole reason we have representative democracy for both branches (the mob choosing who should be the captain/Head of State and electing a council to deal with non-steering-related problems/a legislature), as well as why we have consititutions that are not easily changed (like an instruction book so that the new captain knows how to steer, so that he may then learn more complex "maneuvers" during his tenure). In the end, a democracy seems not that ridiculous after all.

[San Lumen]

The right to vote is the ultimate right to self-expression. If people cannot have a say in the democratic process, then their freedom of expression is enormously curtailed. Besides, in practise, a non-democratic state always devolves the human rights protection in a country. The neccesary safeguards of a just and legal society, being the Constitution and the independent courts, depend on a checked power on the executive. If the executive controls the legislature, there is no use for an independent judiciary.

I'll look up some specific case law from the ECHR, they make a pretty good case for democracy and human rights.

In my view its not the ultimate version of self-expression. That honour would go to something else, like creating artwork or writing a book.

Voting is in many situations a form of submission... its saying to the government "I know my vote won't change anything but I recognise your right to rule over me and I will certify, along with millions of others, that one of these two political party rep is a true representation of what I am and what this country needs."

Its the new era's mockery of a tribute ceremony to the gods or an oath of fealty. And people see it as self-expression or freedom? Come now.

I'd rather kneel and swear allegiance to a king or a lord because at least that has more class then this.

I really dont understand you logic here. How is voting submission? Your mp in the provincial or federal parliament was decided in a free and fair election by the voters of that riding. How is that submission?

You'd rather have a dictatorship or a king with absolute power that could change laws at will and throw you prison for whatever they want?