"Vote. You have no excuse. Vote for a better tomorrow" it says. Logic is solid.

Very solid logic for Voting. Invalidates all excuses not to vote.

Starts like this:

Let me thwart and negate each and every excuse you have for not voting, and then we will talk – lets start with the most common excuse:
“But it doesn’t change anything”

If it didn’t change anything, they wouldn’t be doing endless propaganda from privately owned media to make people vote the way they want.

It does.

Because it changes things that they have to do this propaganda, they have to lie and mislead people, confuse people and herd them the way they want.

The only reason why voting is not changing things is because this propaganda to make people vote against people’s own interests, is successful.

DESPITE that you can effect change.

..........

You can read the rest from the article on the website.

So, what say you?

a reply to: unity100

An apathetic public is useful so when you need to get an issue passed on the local level, you can churn up support from among non-voters to get them to vote "just this once," on a truly unpopular issue. If you have nearly 100% voter turnout at every election cycle, it is very hard to manipulate things like that.

From an individualistic perspective, representative democracy is useless. We are generally presented with only two choices who have generally been equally corrupted by the same economic forces, and at that point, the law of averages kicks in, meaning that your individual vote doesn't matter whatsoever, they might as well just use scientific polling methods to determine the election outcomes.

If we had more than two choices, a none of the above option, or a voting system like Australias where multiple candidates could run and your nth level choices still mattered, then I would vote, but as it presently stands, voting is useless.

While voting is useless, political activity can be powerful, so I still go to protests and things like that. Protests raise public awareness and challenge popular opinions which acts against those laws of averages. A single protestor will cast more votes in their favor than a person standing in line at a ballot box.

originally posted by: Nechash
a reply to: unity100

An apathetic public is useful so when you need to get an issue passed on the local level, you can churn up support from among non-voters to get them to vote "just this once," on a truly unpopular issue. If you have nearly 100% voter turnout at every election cycle, it is very hard to manipulate things like that.

From an individualistic perspective, representative democracy is useless. We are generally presented with only two choices who have generally been equally corrupted by the same economic forces,

that's the situation in usa.

it doesnt have to be that way.

as the article says, its like that because of total media blockade and propaganda.

they even made ron paul disappear in last elections. it was as if the guy didnt exist. you may not agree with his views, but he is a very good example for how the media manipulates elections.

but as the article says - there is internet now. in some respects it has deeper and wider reach than mass media.

Everyone should vote.

Regardless of the outcome.

Granted it has always been a choice between dumb, and dumber everyone should.

I know it's tough between watching reality tv, posting your lives away of facebook, and watching youtube videos etc.

But hey if a person doesn't participate in the process. Then they have nothing to snip about.

originally posted by: neo96
Everyone should vote.

Regardless of the outcome.

Granted it has always been a choice between dumb, and dumber everyone should.

why do you think like that i dont understand...

as the article says, there ARE many choices. that the mass media not pitching them does not mean they dont exist.

today they cant win maybe.

but no one in venezuela thought any political party which wasnt backed by rich corporate interests could win either.

it happened. in venezuela, and in other places.

it can be done if this approach 'its a choice in between two evils' changes.

that IS what they want you to think.

As of this moment, BBC in uk is busy with excluding green party from political debates, and instead including ukip, which is a FASCIST party with only one seat in parliament and LESS votes than green party.

see. this is how they do it.

only if you let them.

a reply to: neo96

Voting only validates a corrupt system , if no one voted they would be forced to make a change ....don't vote.

a reply to: unity100

I was just remarking to a friend that in my area, this is the worst election cycle I've ever seen.

What makes it the worst? The slate of candidates! Its so bad that I've observed that for the most part, they're smart enough to stay off the TV. Be the candidate Democrat or Republican, the "ick" factor is huge. The "slime" factor is so huge that I think the average person is really either forced to hold their nose and vote for the least creepy character, or...stay home altogether because the choices are so crummy.

Notice, I'm not mentioning the Libertarian party candidates and not including them in this analysis simply because I've not had the time to vet them yet.

My prediction is that turnout will be incredibly small this year. But that speaks to another aspect of this election, (an off "presidential" cycle year), only the most rabid party faithful will bother to vote, which means a bunch of creeps will be elected by probably something like 30% of the eligible voters.

Another low point for this election has been the political ads. They're sparse, ugly, mean and contain no information helpful to learning about a candidate. Both the two main parties appear to be doing all their campaigning on Facebook. I don't Facebook and that makes it even more difficult to parse through the details.

But hey! It gets worse! There's an online resource, votesmart.org... that you can use to find the candidates positions on key issues...if they've "answered" the questions and most all I've searched on get an "F" grade from Project Vote Smart for providing pertinent information on their positions!

I'm really beginning to think that as part of election reform, we should pass a law to the effect that there's a certain minimum amount of information candidates MUST provide to be eligible to run. At this point, we're in a ridiculous situation.

WTF does voting do again..
People really do not understand..

He who votes decides nothing, He who counts the votes decides everything..

If voting made a difference it would be illegal..

Case in point.. Someone seriously tell me the elections are legit..

Then I will say go look at the 2012 presidential race where they straight out railroaded Ron Paul..
Not just railroaded him but straight out cheated him out of Key positions in the primaries... But it was cool 12 weeks after they said they made a mistake and RP won those places.. But here we are with an honest election eh?

I am with Carlin, I didnt vote and I dont plan on it.. If the country is screwed up its because of all the idiots voting.

originally posted by: gortex
Voting only validates a corrupt system , if no one voted they would be forced to make a change ....don't vote.

In complete agreement. No matter who is voted in the same outcome is bound to happen. Your voting for corporations interests. I've never voted and never will until Democrats and Republicans aren't on the ballot.

a reply to: unity100

Even if you realize that voting doesn't make a difference you still have to do it.

Keep in mind, who doesn't want you to vote and act accordingly.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: unity100

Even if you realize that voting doesn't make a difference you still have to do it.

Keep in mind, who doesn't want you to vote and act accordingly.

Any person with a below average IQ knows voting is a game..

Presidential Idol (TM)

originally posted by: gortex
Voting only validates a corrupt system , if no one voted they would be forced to make a change ....don't vote.

That piece has a good response for this :

It doesn’t ‘legitimize’ anything.

Even if no one voted for them, they would still claim legitimacy. Even if it was a totally fascist system with no elections, they would STILL claim legitimacy, and then come and bash your head in.

They aren’t going to stop and think or change their behavior if you don’t vote. They don’t care whether you do not vote as a ‘reaction’ to the system. They are fine with that. Actually, they WOULD want you to act that way so they could just keep doing what they are doing.

Don’t let them keep going like that. Vote, and legitimize the party YOU want – whichever that is.

Look at the last Presidential election in the US.
The next highest vote getter behind Obama and Romney had 0.1‰ of the vote. I can't even remember his name. If you don'tlike the turd ssandwich or the giant douche, then your vote is truly of no consequence.

originally posted by: watchitburn
Look at the last Presidential election in the US.
The next highest vote getter behind Obama and Romney had 0.1‰ of the vote. I can't even remember his name. If you don'tlike the turd ssandwich or the giant douche, then your vote is truly of no consequence.

corporate press in venezuela did the same thing to podemos and chavez, and through grassroots networking and movement they were able to totally circumvent it.

if they could do it, americans also can do it. everyone can do it.

a reply to: unity100

That piece has a good response for this :

For you perhaps but I don't think so , I'd be interested to know who wrote the article as I can see no name attached.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: unity100

That piece has a good response for this :

For you perhaps but I don't think so , I'd be interested to know who wrote the article as I can see no name attached.

the logic is sound - if you think otherwise, why not explain?

and what relevance does the name of the writer has anything to do with the logic contained in a text.

logic is self-validating. if it holds, it holds regardless of the name of the one who speaks it. if it doesnt hold, the biggest name in the history of human civilization can not validate it.

originally posted by: unity100

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: unity100

That piece has a good response for this :

For you perhaps but I don't think so , I'd be interested to know who wrote the article as I can see no name attached.

the logic is sound - if you think otherwise, why not explain?

and what relevance does the name of the writer has anything to do with the logic contained in a text.

logic is self-validating. if it holds, it holds regardless of the name of the one who speaks it. if it doesnt hold, the biggest name in the history of human civilization can not validate it.

Why don't you explain why Gortex logic isn't sound? Sounds a little more plausible IMO. How would it be possible to elect someone if nobody voted without causing an uproar nationwide? Maybe I'm missing your whole point who knows?

originally posted by: amicktd

originally posted by: unity100

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: unity100

That piece has a good response for this :

For you perhaps but I don't think so , I'd be interested to know who wrote the article as I can see no name attached.

the logic is sound - if you think otherwise, why not explain?

and what relevance does the name of the writer has anything to do with the logic contained in a text.

logic is self-validating. if it holds, it holds regardless of the name of the one who speaks it. if it doesnt hold, the biggest name in the history of human civilization can not validate it.

Why don't you explain why Gortex logic isn't sound? Sounds a little more plausible IMO. How would it be possible to elect someone if nobody voted without causing an uproar nationwide? Maybe I'm missing your whole point who knows?

what does 'causing an uproar nationwide' have to do with voting.

it seems that you are entirely missing the point.

have you read the article at all?

a reply to: unity100

A wild idea as surely steeped in speculation and paranoia as cable news election forecasters (their goatees do it for them . . . lend them their awe worthy predictive powers, don't you know it?) so how about it: the men, women--the various scions of true power brokering (broken) America who run every drop of the bureaucracy--we the public have never seen them; they never "run" for office; no term limits apply; lifetime appointments for all.

Who among us out there truly believes our rulers would allow us to delimit the potency of their power? Why, how would our government accomplish anything if Joseph B. American blue-collar worker was granted by citizenship, birthright the right to vote down our nobility? Throughout all of the governments/kingdoms/empires of human history it's never worked that way; the poor have never dictated terms of governance to the aristocracy. We Americans must truly be fortunate sons and daughters of the ages. Streets paved with gold and all that . . .