NationStates

Afrikan Staat wrote:I feel like my vote doesn't matter in my proportional(ish) system of multiparty democracy, because all of them are the same.

By "same", I mean almost all of them literally don't have any ideological platform stated on their website. I don't mean that their ideological platforms are the same, I mean that they don't have ideological platform (or even policies)

They're also stacked by people of similar background (mainly business oligarchs), and since the parties are the same anyways, its members regularly change parties depending on who has the best polling numbers, and best monetary arrangements

Forever Indomitable wrote:snip

Platoon of Peace wrote:The idea that your vote doesn't matter is silly, at least to me. You may be able to make an argument about it not mattering, at least in America, which I assume we're talking about, what with your vote being one of 330 million. But the fact that you can vote means that it does matter. In some countries, the idea of a vote on a leader is basis for being arrested and killed. But the ability to say, "I think Trump sucks" or "Biden is a bad president" or "Vote for X" is something that we are lucky to have and often take for granted. No, this system isn't perfect, but at least we have some say and your vote will matter.

This is coming from someone who has the unfortunate luck to agree with both sides on certain issues, meaning that no candidate is perfect for me.

Afrikan Staat wrote:

Platoon of Peace wrote:The idea that your vote doesn't matter is silly, at least to me. You may be able to make an argument about it not mattering, at least in America, which I assume we're talking about, what with your vote being one of 330 million. But the fact that you can vote means that it does matter. In some countries, the idea of a vote on a leader is basis for being arrested and killed. But the ability to say, "I think Trump sucks" or "Biden is a bad president" or "Vote for X" is something that we are lucky to have and often take for granted. No, this system isn't perfect, but at least we have some say and your vote will matter.

This is coming from someone who has the unfortunate luck to agree with both sides on certain issues, meaning that no candidate is perfect for me.

Tbh the only votes that matter in my country, as I see it, is presidential elections (and on a smaller scale, executive local elections). And it is strictly based on two principles:

1. The candidate's quality (obvious dictator wannabes, Islamist populists, and corrupt strongmen should be prevented at all cost)
2. No single political party should be too powerful (meaning that I'll likely vote against any party chairmans in a presidential election)

Ideally the results are such that no faction gains absolute power, meaning that the existing technocratic elements have a greater say in the directions of the country. Non-technocratic ministers from political parties are almost always a total disaster, their term spent moving from one disastrous decision to another before being caught wet-handed in embezzlement sting operations. Technocrats have a far better track record.

Forever Indomitable wrote: Nobody marches with me; everyone marches against me.

Emotional Support Crocodile wrote:

Forever Indomitable wrote: Nobody marches with me; everyone marches against me.

That makes you sound like such a fucking drama queen.

Forever Indomitable wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
Yeah why did woman African Americans march and protest for the right to the vote? it did nothing.

Chance often is most felt at the local level. Your vote matters most there.

Politics is absolutely not genetic. I don't know where you got this absurd idea from.

African Americans had always had support in this country from an ever growing section of the White population, so their right to vote was an inevitability, like women's right to vote. And keep in mind what you just said: African AmericanS. Plural, not singular. I am singular. Nobody marches with me; everyone marches against me.

The House of Hamid wrote:
What?!

Could you expand on that idea?

Sure, at the moment, biologists estimate at least 20-60% of human personality to be purely genetic and various research supports this. But in actuality, the margin of influence is probably much higher:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29152902/
"Twin and family studies have showed that personality traits are moderately heritable, and can predict various lifetime outcomes, including psychopathology."

"Despite considerable efforts over the past several decades, the genetic variants that influence personality are only beginning to be identified."

https://bookofodds.com/relationships-so ... physiology
"And since people aren’t often inclined to pair off with those who don’t share their political views (the odds a woman reports having similar views to her partner is 1 in 1.18, or about 85%), if politics are genetic, we’re likely to get them from both sides of the family tree."
Basically, people overwhelmingly breed with others who are most like themselves, which limits cognitive variety. That's why we have a duopoly and such little variation. I'm so different because I have a family history of people who are fairly different breeding together. I have more cognitive variety in my DNA than most others.

Emotional Support Crocodile wrote:

Forever Indomitable wrote: Nobody marches with me; everyone marches against me.

That makes you sound like such a fucking drama queen.

Platoon of Peace wrote:

Afrikan Staat wrote:Tbh the only votes that matter in my country, as I see it, is presidential elections (and on a smaller scale, executive local elections). And it is strictly based on two principles:

1. The candidate's quality (obvious dictator wannabes, Islamist populists, and corrupt strongmen should be prevented at all cost)
2. No single political party should be too powerful (meaning that I'll likely vote against any party chairmans in a presidential election)

Ideally the results are such that no faction gains absolute power, meaning that the existing technocratic elements have a greater say in the directions of the country. Non-technocratic ministers from political parties are almost always a total disaster, their term spent moving from one disastrous decision to another before being caught wet-handed in embezzlement sting operations. Technocrats have a far better track record.

That's interesting. I don't know that I've heard of people voting to prevent all parties from having too much power. What country are you from?

1. A corporation, where the largest shareholder is the boss. (This applies in both local and national level). This is because there is literally no regulation about this (try to guess who has the power to make these regulations). In 2009, Tommy Suharto, the son of the late military dictator, tried to buy his way into becoming the chairman of the country's largest party, Golkar, by promising Rp 50 billion in direct cash to each of the party high ranking members. He was defeated by businessman Aburizal Bakrie, who promised Rp 1 trillion.
2. A hereditary monarchy. However, for the lower rank, it's still based on how many money you can give to the party, so it'smore accurate to view it as a family-run corporation with a limited shareholder system.

Forever Indomitable wrote:

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:There are other ways of participation. For example, media, responsibility etc.

All I can do is try to get rich because money is some degree of power and freedom. Nothing else will do anything because people only pursue their own interests to total supremacy. I'm too different and singular for anybody to afford me anything. It's me against the world and I accept that challenge.

Every time I "voice" myself, people hate me. My single vote is worth absolutely nothing in the real world and my locality is just the same old Red/Blue dichotomy. The only thing worth participating in is business and that's what I'm working on.

Erablegensstan wrote:Why would people voting make a difference, when corporations, special interests and foreign governments have billions to spend on our elected officials? Democracy is a farce used to keep people complacent

San Lumen wrote:

Erablegensstan wrote:Why would people voting make a difference, when corporations, special interests and foreign governments have billions to spend on our elected officials? Democracy is a farce used to keep people complacent

A generalization that simply isn't true.

American Legionaries wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
A generalization that simply isn't true.

TIL lobbying doesn't real...

San Lumen wrote:

Erablegensstan wrote:Why would people voting make a difference, when corporations, special interests and foreign governments have billions to spend on our elected officials? Democracy is a farce used to keep people complacent

A generalization that simply isn't true.

Erablegensstan wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
A generalization that simply isn't true.

Then how is it that most of the legislation passed in democracies such as the US only benefits special interest groups.

San Lumen wrote:

Erablegensstan wrote:Why would people voting make a difference, when corporations, special interests and foreign governments have billions to spend on our elected officials? Democracy is a farce used to keep people complacent

A generalization that simply isn't true.

San Lumen wrote:

Erablegensstan wrote:
Then how is it that most of the legislation passed in democracies such as the US only benefits special interest groups.

Another lie.

Are mayors and cities all in the pocket of special interests and wealthy elites? What about small towns?

Kalivyah wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
Another lie.

Are mayors and cities all in the pocket of special interests and wealthy elites? What about small towns?

Yes. Also yes.

San Lumen wrote:

Kalivyah wrote:Yes. Also yes.

Yet another lie. Is the mayor a small town in Missouri or Idaho a rich elitist who is taking massive amounts of money from special interests groups.

As someone who knows people in rural New York I can tell you the answer is no.

Kalivyah wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
Yet another lie. Is the mayor a small town in Missouri or Idaho a rich elitist who is taking massive amounts of money from special interests groups.

As someone who knows people in rural New York I can tell you the answer is no.

You live in New York. Let's see an opinion from somewhere else.