Why Vote? (article)

I don't understand what he means by "get what we were promised." What exactly were we promised? The founders promised an opportunity, nothing more. We have expanded that to include minorities and women, but it hasn't been easy and is still in progress. This guy is a political hatchet man and he reveals himself as such by writing that the republican party is empty to it's core. The truth is, both parties are empty. They represent their own interests of controlling the levers of power so they can line their pockets.

I have a book on my shelves with the title "If Voting Changed Anything It Would Not Be Allowed." I see the point but I disagree.

In any election it matters who wins. Even with a lousy choice, citizens have a duty to express a preference.

If people systematically fail to vote, then any politician appealing to their interests is not going to get far. To be credible a politican must win elections and that means they must be shown an active, voting constituency.

If the right to vote is not valued, then political agencies can get away with tactics to deprive significant groups of their vote and this is happening on a big scale in the US. It always has done of course.

But it is not voting that changes anything. Democracy only works as designed if it is supported by politically active, and politically informed voters, and that in turn calls for an infrastructure of resources that will not emerge from thin air or the philanthropy of the very rich. Movements that did shift things in the Sixtes were trades unions, feminists, civil rights activists, anti war campaigners, and they were visible in the huge numbers required to secure concessions from their elected governments, always reluctantly, partially, equivocally, minimally.

The Right has responded forcefully by investing in its own counter movement. The churches, the media, the Tea Party, the flag waving mob roused with demagoguery and directed towards carefully selected hate targets. They have managed to move back the gains of the progressive era with well managed propoganda - and slogans such a "political correctness" to mock the achievements and the passion of the progressives.

If you want to see progressive politics, I am afraid it will be confronted by powerful forces seeking its destruction and it is going to call for a lot more than the wishful hope for a more honest politician. Remember, Stalin was greatly loved in his day and is still remembered fondly. The East German Communist Party was always diligent in receiving and responding to the concerns of their people and only fell when it lost that support. The desire for benevolent political leaders is a childish wish for a fairy godmother and politicians are well practised in playing to that delusion. Keep playing that game and you will never get to grips with the problem.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I disagree with the premise: "if this democracy is to work, we must get what we were promised."

This democracy always works, and it WILL work -- for somebody.

Millions of people need to decide what they want to get, and vote for it, because if they won't, some other mob will.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Clearly, the electorate is pretty evenly split between the major parties in the USA. A majority of 10% is considered a "landslide".

That leaves 40% who think their vote was wasted, by the reasoning of Mr. Baker. If Romney should win an electoral majority, but lose the popular vote, there could be mor3 than half who think their vote didn't "count".

I will vote to fire a failed President. If I'm in the minority, I will try again next time. Everyone can't get their wishes just by voting.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

And I disagreed with the closing point made in your post:

if this democracy is to work, we must get what we were promised

Politics in a democracy is not sufficiently grounded while it rests on a passive and misinformed electorate. Looking for a charismatic leader is a mark of fascism. It establishes a parent / child relationship between the electorate and its politicians.

Why vote? For the same reason you ought to pay your taxes: you surely don't get anything back for it (directly), and your tax contribution is negligible. But if no one pays taxes, then society collapses. Likewise, if no one votes, democracy is undermined and cannot function. You should vote because it is the morally right thing to do (though with this responsibility also comes a responsibility to be informed).

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Why vote? For the same reason you ought to pay your taxes: you surely don't get anything back for it (directly), and your tax contribution is negligible. But if no one pays taxes, then society collapses. Likewise, if no one votes, democracy is undermined and cannot function. You should vote because it is the morally right thing to do (though with this responsibility also comes a responsibility to be informed).

You are applying Kant's moral question -- "What if everyone did it? -- which is reasonable enough, but I suggest the moral imperative is to for citizens to improve their historical perspective, judgement skills and knowledge of political issues, and only then should they vote. I say this because there are some basically clueless people who I don't think should be encouraged to vote. Of course I would not support any sort of "test" being required.

Originally posted by JS357
You are applying Kant's moral question -- "What if everyone did it? -- which is reasonable enough, but I suggest the moral imperative is to for citizens to improve their historical perspective, judgement skills and knowledge of political issues, and only then should they vote. I say this because there are some basically clueless people who I don't think should be encouraged to vote. Of course I would not support any sort of "test" being required.

So maybe you would support the need for political education, which was kicked out of the English curriculum through the 1988 Education Reform Act (Tories don't like political education, social science teaching, or anything similar but they and New Labour are promoting religious education vigorously) and for the right to media with some modicum of commitment to informing the voter about issues and not distracting them with personalities?

In Britain the reading age at which the popular, mass circulation daily papers are written is that of a nine year old (if the 9 year old was properly educated I imagine). That is an objective asessment from people who are required to assess the reading age of our children.

Looking for a source I found this and thought someone might like to try applying it to our forums??? Has to be entertaining.

If you have a recent version of Microsoft Word, try this. (This is for a PC--there's probably something similar for a Mac) Go to an online newspaper, highlight a few paragraphs of an article and right click to copy them. Then open a blank Word document and right click to paste them. Then run a reading level check.

To set Word to run a reading level check go to Tools, then Options and select the Spelling and Grammar tab. Make sure that the box called "Show readability statistics" is checked. Then close out of there and go to back to Tools, then select Spelling and Grammar.

A box will pop up and Word will tell you what the reading level of your document is is using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level scale.

Whoever doesn't vote and complains about their government should be lined up in 3 and shot to save bullets.

Originally posted by Trev33
Whoever doesn't vote and complains about their government should be lined up in 3 and shot to save bullets.

Now, now, you are not getting with the spirit of this thread. The purpose of this thread is to stop those on the right from voting.

Get with it man!! 😠