Here's a suggestion...boycott the US election

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Make sense?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73x8uOXQjag

Commy

eh that's worth watching for sure. makes you think.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

his basic argument is that if turnout was low enough, the winner wouldnt have legitamacy, which is wrong IMO. few people choose our leaders now, and it doesnt impede them. less wont make any difference. and anyway, the most of people who do vote are pretty sure that they count, so good luck convincing them.

how does not voting change anything? if we are controlled by bankers, it wont matter whether we vote or not anyway. with voter turnouts so low over the last few decades, a "boycott" would be ignored. by not voting, people would just assume you're one of the lazy and apathetic legions of people who dont matter to them anyway.

if enough people voted third party that could theoretically get noticed.

as long as its legal to vote for whoever you want and not get jailed for it, its still pretty much up to the people. you cant really blame the system if the people get suckered into voting for the same guy over and over cuz he has more money.

i'm telling you guys, divine monarchy is the way to go! democracy is for losers.

Commy

MrSmith wrote:

his basic argument is that if turnout was low enough, the winner wouldnt have legitamacy, which is wrong IMO. few people choose our leaders now, and it doesnt impede them. less wont make any difference. and anyway, the most of people who do vote are pretty sure that they count, so good luck convincing them.

how does not voting change anything? if we are controlled by bankers, it wont matter whether we vote or not anyway. with voter turnouts so low over the last few decades, a "boycott" would be ignored. by not voting, people would just assume you're one of the lazy and apathetic legions of people who dont matter to them anyway.

if enough people voted third party that could theoretically get noticed.

as long as its legal to vote for whoever you want and not get jailed for it, its still pretty much up to the people. you cant really blame the system if the people get suckered into voting for the same guy over and over cuz he has more money.

i'm telling you guys, divine monarchy is the way to go! democracy is for losers.

I think his point was that if a very small minority-say less than 10%- elected the president, he/she would have no legitimate claim to power, as the population did not in fact choose him/her.

I'm still voting, but he has a point.

jeffbr

I'd rather see a push for a "None of the above" option on the ballot so that it is clear we don't like the choices. People who boycott will simply be dismissed as apathetic, even if they aren't.

Brisk.

What happens if there is a tie, lets say only 100 americans vote and its 50 50?

iamica

Commy wrote:

I think his point was that if a very small minority-say less than 10%- elected the president, he/she would have no legitimate claim to power, as the population did not in fact choose him/her.

I'm still voting, but he has a point.

Bush didn't get the majority popular vote, and he still won.

Commy

iamica wrote:

Bush didn't get the majority popular vote, and he still won.

they never get the majority vote period. considering half the country votes, less than half vote for the winner, we're talking about 25% of a population electing presidents.

again, if a very small minority were to elect a president he would then would have no legitimate claim to power

also I am voting, I do not subscribe to this idea.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

The US should have an "other" option (no confidence vote) on the ballot this year. Canada did.

jimlives

He Reeeally chose the wrong election to make this video. I'd ask him to give it another go in 4 years.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jimlives wrote:

He Reeeally chose the wrong election to make this video. I'd ask him to give it another go in 4 years.

History will have bit people in the ass by then...

Ron Paul was saying it 20 years ago...people still aren't listening

the public is ignorant and aloof...

gabers

I BrisK I wrote:

What happens if there is a tie, lets say only 100 americans vote and its 50 50?

Are you serious? I don't see the smirking happy face so it's hard to tell. Did you follow the last two elections? It's a bit more complicated.

jimlives

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

History will have bit people in the ass by then...

Ron Paul was saying it 20 years ago...people still aren't listening

the public is ignorant and aloof...

If that's what you believe. But people are more involved in this election then recent elections of the past.

know1

Commy wrote:

I think his point was that if a very small minority-say less than 10%- elected the president, he/she would have no legitimate claim to power, as the population did not in fact choose him/her.

I'm still voting, but he has a point.

They never really have a legitimate claim (see Bush in 2000), but does that have even the smallest effect on their presidency? NO!

prytoj

If we remove from ourselves the right to vote, the we have done that part of the job for them.

The answer is more involvement, not less. This is ultra cynicism.

Brisk.

gabers wrote:

Are you serious? I don't see the smirking happy face so it's hard to tell. Did you follow the last two elections? It's a bit more complicated.

nope im being serious, no didn't follow the last two elections.

GeorgeMcFly

Fuck people who don't vote.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

prytoj wrote:

If we remove from ourselves the right to vote, the we have done that part of the job for them.

The answer is more involvement, not less. This is ultra cynicism.

There needs to be a no confidence option on the ballot. Without it, it's forced representation. Democracy for some (who are fooled into thinking they are getting it).

...and open up the debates, if they can even be called debates.

Gonzo1977

prytoj wrote:

If we remove from ourselves the right to vote, the we have done that part of the job for them.

The answer is more involvement, not less. This is ultra cynicism.

I Could not agree more.

prytoj

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

There needs to be a no confidence option on the ballot. Without it, it's forced representation. Democracy for some (who are fooled into thinking they are getting it).

...and open up the debates, if they can even be called debates.

The "no confidence" is a point worth debating, but we all know the debates are canned.

I believe that increased participation is increased representation. I would say that a general apathy and cynicism is largely why participation is so low.

Change is much easier to achieve at a smaller, local level. We need to understand that the much larger federal government is farther from us and much harder to affect on an individual basis.

Change is best channeled through local goverment up to the higher levels, not through "not voting" in my view.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

prytoj wrote:

The "no confidence" is a point worth debating, but we all know the debates are canned.

I believe that increased participation is increased representation. I would say that a general apathy and cynicism is largely why participation is so low.

Change is much easier to achieve at a smaller, local level. We need to understand that the much larger federal government is farther from us and much harder to affect on an individual basis.

Change is best channeled through local goverment up to the higher levels, not through "not voting" in my view.

If everyone say 95% figured it out, and didn't vote, it could potentially work. Really all there needs to be is a no confidence option for voters. Without it, it's a snow job. This coming election is one of the most pathetic representations of democracy I've ever witnessed in the US thus far, come to think of it, so were the last two as well.

beachdweller

his premise is ridiculous for several reasons, first people are modivated and pationate about voting this year, so saying don't at the expense of the other candidate winning isn't an option in the majority of voters eyes IMO, and second the basic idea that legitimacy has anything to do with the Presidents ability to weld their power is plain stupid. You're not a lame duck because not many people voted, you are a lame duck because you're incompetence, like Bush, and because of a pending presidential election that you aren't going to be part of.

we need more people to vote than ever before, regardless of who they vote for.

BinFrog

You've already got this system down to perfection: you are Canadian and thus unable to even have the opportunity to vote here. So it looks like you can do your own form of peaceful protest.