Compulsory voting (part 3)

93 posts / 0 new
Last post
Benoit
Compulsory voting (part 3)

 

Benoit

I think that too much insistence on secret voting can transform a democracy into a dictatorship. When voting is seen as the defining element of a political system, an anarchy of egotists will come to define what the will of the people is. Eventually, this can weaken the democracy to a point where it becomes an easy prey to megalomaniacs. Since the dawn of humankind, we use deliberation to ward off this corrupting tendency.

Jacob Two-Two

What does this have to do with compulsory voting? One minute you say it's so important everyone has to be forced into it, the next minute you say that over-emphasising it leads to tyranny.

Anyway, since you ignored my points in the other thread, I'm going to post them again [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]

I think where you're going horribly, horribly wrong is this notion of voting as a responsibility. While it is a responsible thing to do, one might say, it cannot be a responsibility in the stricter sense of the word, because by design it is the very reform that legitimised the notion of responsibility to the state.

The advocates of democracy said, we will accept the authority of the state again if you give us the right to choose our leaders. That was the compromise that held the social order together and is still doing so today. It is not something you owe to the state, it is something the state owes to you, your authority that recompenses you for the authority you give up to the state.

As such, it is foolish to squander it, but it is also fully your right to do so. If you put parameters on voting, even in the case of wasting your vote, you remove the authority the vote was meant to provide. You betray the compromise, and enslave people all over again. My vote is my own. I don't owe it to anyone. I can do what I like with it. If you want to enforce restrictions on my democratic franchise, then I consider you an enemy of democracy. I don't see how it can be otherwise.

Brian White

I think voting is a duty not a responsibility.
If you dont vote, you are letting down those who vote similarly to you and therefore letting down your section of society.
You are a political deserter in the war for equality. Clasically the poorer people are the ones who do not vote. People want me to name my sources (like this was funded research or something!).
Remember mccain and obama calling out to middle class americans? they were not calling out to the poor because they have long ago given up on the poor.
We should force people to vote in the same way as we forced people to stop smoking.
Has anyone checked the health and wealth
co-relations for not voting people? I bet they are right down at the bottom in both catigorys.
You know about the expanding gap between rich and poor. Just like the gap between voter and non voter.
People say it is faschist to force people to vote. I disagree. As far as I am concerned, not voting enables faschists. If you don't vote, there is one less person on the line to stop them from destroying democracy. Harper governs (like a little napoleon) with 22% or so of the eligible votes. It would be much harder for him to get away with this if we had 80 or 90% participation in elections. If we forced the poor to vote on pain of a $50 fine, we probably would not even have to suffer him at all.
A poor non voting marginalized person is a self fulfilling thing.
I honestly believe that voting will make people on the bottom rungs a little bit better off.

quote:

I think where you're going horribly, horribly wrong is this notion of voting as a responsibility. While it is a responsible thing to do, one might say, it cannot be a responsibility in the stricter sense of the word, because by design it is the very reform that legitimised the notion of responsibility to the state.

The advocates of democracy said, we will accept the authority of the state again if you give us the right to choose our leaders. That was the compromise that held the social order together and is still doing so today. It is not something you owe to the state, it is something the state owes to you, your authority that recompenses you for the authority you give up to the state.

As such, it is foolish to squander it, but it is also fully your right to do so. If you put parameters on voting, even in the case of wasting your vote, you remove the authority the vote was meant to provide. You betray the compromise, and enslave people all over again. My vote is my own. I don't owe it to anyone. I can do what I like with it. If you want to enforce restrictions on my democratic franchise, then I consider you an enemy of democracy. I don't see how it can be otherwise.[/QB]


Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]I think voting is a duty not a responsibility. [/b]

"Freedom is not a right, it is a duty."

Guess who?

genstrike

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]I think voting is a duty not a responsibility.
If you dont vote, you are letting down those who vote similarly to you and therefore letting down your section of society.
You are a political deserter in the war for equality. Clasically the poorer people are the ones who do not vote. People want me to name my sources (like this was funded research or something!).
Remember mccain and obama calling out to middle class americans? they were not calling out to the poor because they have long ago given up on the poor.
We should force people to vote in the same way as we forced people to stop smoking.
Has anyone checked the health and wealth
co-relations for not voting people? I bet they are right down at the bottom in both catigorys.
You know about the expanding gap between rich and poor. Just like the gap between voter and non voter.
People say it is faschist to force people to vote. I disagree. As far as I am concerned, not voting enables faschists. If you don't vote, there is one less person on the line to stop them from destroying democracy. Harper governs (like a little napoleon) with 22% or so of the eligible votes. It would be much harder for him to get away with this if we had 80 or 90% participation in elections. If we forced the poor to vote on pain of a $50 fine, we probably would not even have to suffer him at all.
A poor non voting marginalized person is a self fulfilling thing.
I honestly believe that voting will make people on the bottom rungs a little bit better off.
[/b]

I think participating in direct action is a duty not a responsibility.
If you dont participate in direct action, you are letting down those who participate in demonstrations similarly to you and therefore letting down your section of society.
You are a direct action deserter in the war for equality. Clasically the poorer people are the ones who do not participate in direct action. People want me to name my sources (like this was funded research or something!).
Remember mccain and obama calling out to middle class americans? they were not calling out to the poor because they have long ago given up on the poor.
We should force people to participate in direcct action in the same way as we forced people to stop smoking.
Has anyone checked the health and wealth
co-relations for non-direct action people? I bet they are right down at the bottom in both catigorys.
You know about the expanding gap between rich and poor. Just like the gap between participator in direct actions and person led down the road of electoralism.
People say it is faschist to force people to participate in direct action. I disagree. As far as I am concerned, not participating in direct action enables faschists. If you don't participate in direct action, there is one less person on the line to stop them from destroying democracy. Harper governs (like a little napoleon) with 22% or so of the eligible votes. It would be much harder for him to get away with this if we had 80 or 90% participation in direct action. If we forced the poor to go to direct actions on pain of a $50 fine, we probably would not even have to suffer him at all.
A poor non participating in direct action marginalized person is a self fulfilling thing.
I honestly believe that participating in direct action will make people on the bottom rungs a little bit better off.

See how crazy it sounds [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: genstrike ]

Benoit

quote:


Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:
[b]What does this have to do with compulsory voting? One minute you say it's so important everyone has to be forced into it, the next minute you say that over-emphasising it leads to tyranny.

Anyway, since you ignored my points in the other thread, I'm going to post them again [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]

I think where you're going horribly, horribly wrong is this notion of voting as a responsibility. While it is a responsible thing to do, one might say, it cannot be a responsibility in the stricter sense of the word, because by design it is the very reform that legitimised the notion of responsibility to the state.

The advocates of democracy said, we will accept the authority of the state again if you give us the right to choose our leaders. That was the compromise that held the social order together and is still doing so today. It is not something you owe to the state, it is something the state owes to you, your authority that recompenses you for the authority you give up to the state.

As such, it is foolish to squander it, but it is also fully your right to do so. If you put parameters on voting, even in the case of wasting your vote, you remove the authority the vote was meant to provide. You betray the compromise, and enslave people all over again. My vote is my own. I don't owe it to anyone. I can do what I like with it. If you want to enforce restrictions on my democratic franchise, then I consider you an enemy of democracy. I don't see how it can be otherwise.[/b]


To me, politics is by far the most important matter in human life. Only politics can bring the peace necessary for all other human endeavours to be possible. Secret voting is the saddest part inside our most exhilarating undertaking: Voting is necessary only when people have not been able to reach a public consensus and when the time is lacking for a collective deliberation to go on.

Compulsory voting would be a reform that legitimises the notion of responsibility toward a very particular form of political regime that may or may not include state. More accurately, forcing a citizen to do something with his ballot, this would be a reform that only delegitimizes passivity as a way to change power distribution.

genstrike

quote:


Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]
To me, politics is by far the most important matter in human life. Only politics can bring the peace necessary for all other human endeavours to be possible.[/b]

No, only eliminating oppressive and alienating modes of production (ie: capitalism) will bring peace. Bourgeois capitalist "democracy" will not being peace, and neither will forcing people to participate in bourgeois capitalist "democracy"

quote:

Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]
Compulsory voting would be a reform that legitimises the notion of responsibility toward a very particular form of political regime that may or may not include state.[/b]

Exactly. And we should be fighting this political regime, not being subservient to it.

Benoit

quote:


Originally posted by genstrike:
[b]

- only eliminating oppressive and alienating modes of production (ie: capitalism) will bring peace. Bourgeois capitalist "democracy" will not being peace, and neither will forcing people to participate in bourgeois capitalist "democracy"

- And we should be fighting this political regime, not being subservient to it.
[/b]


- Private property is the main business of politics.

- Actively defending this FORM of regime is empowering.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]

- Private property is the main business of politics.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ][/b]


I don't see how this statement is out of accord with GenStrikes statment at all. I seemed to be the main thrust of his point.

Benoit

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]

I don't see how this statement is out of accord with GenStrikes statment at all. I seemed to be the main thrust of his point.[/b]


Politics is not reducible to only bourgeois capitalist "democracy".

Cueball Cueball's picture

No! Really? Then why did you say that "Private property is the main business of politics"?

Benoit

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]No! Really? Then why did you say that "Private property is the main business of politics"?[/b]

Politics is the power to keep separated what is mine from what is yours.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Really? I thought you were going to try and get the state to grab some of what's mine because you think I should vote, even though my not voting actually helps your cause because you can be absolutely sure that I would not vote for any of the neo-fascist political formulations you chose to be a part of.

Brian White

I do not care who or what you vote for, you can spoil your vote, no problem. But the participation is necessary to keep the state on the right track. Lots of people stand idly by as harper takes over this country. You already get several hours off work if necessary to go vote. Might as well use that time.
Real resistance is not futile but there is a difference between apathy and resistance. Apathy is futile. And most non voting is caused by apathy.

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Really? I thought you were going to try and get the state to grab some of what's mine because you think I should vote, even though my not voting actually helps your cause because you can be absolutely sure that I would not vote for any of the neo-fascist political formulations you chose to be a part of.[/b]

Brian White

What is your point? How do you define direct action? How is not voting direct or action? Pretty lazy to repeat my text with a couple of words altered.
(Which alters the meaning).
And you say that it is pretty crazy at the end. Well, YOU altered the text and meaning and then you tell us it is crazy.
Yes indeed. Agreed.

quote:

Originally posted by genstrike:
[b]

I think participating in direct action is a duty not a responsibility.
If you dont participate in direct action, you are letting down those who participate in demonstrations similarly to you and therefore letting down your section of society.
You are a direct action deserter in the war for equality. Clasically the poorer people are the ones who do not participate in direct action. People want me to name my sources (like this was funded research or something!).
Remember mccain and obama calling out to middle class americans? they were not calling out to the poor because they have long ago given up on the poor.
We should force people to participate in direcct action in the same way as we forced people to stop smoking.
Has anyone checked the health and wealth
co-relations for non-direct action people? I bet they are right down at the bottom in both catigorys.
You know about the expanding gap between rich and poor. Just like the gap between participator in direct actions and person led down the road of electoralism.
People say it is faschist to force people to participate in direct action. I disagree. As far as I am concerned, not participating in direct action enables faschists. If you don't participate in direct action, there is one less person on the line to stop them from destroying democracy. Harper governs (like a little napoleon) with 22% or so of the eligible votes. It would be much harder for him to get away with this if we had 80 or 90% participation in direct action. If we forced the poor to go to direct actions on pain of a $50 fine, we probably would not even have to suffer him at all.
A poor non participating in direct action marginalized person is a self fulfilling thing.
I honestly believe that participating in direct action will make people on the bottom rungs a little bit better off.

See how crazy it sounds [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: genstrike ][/b]


genstrike

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]What is your point? How do you define direct action? How is not voting direct or action? Pretty lazy to repeat my text with a couple of words altered.
(Which alters the meaning).
And you say that it is pretty crazy at the end. Well, YOU altered the text and meaning and then you tell us it is crazy.
Yes indeed. Agreed.
[/b]

My point was that if you are trying to achieve real democratic social change, it is pretty crazy to try to have the state force people to participate in the strategy you feel is most effective, even though some people are opposed to legitimizing the government through participation in electoral politics.

quote:

Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]I do not care who or what you vote for, you can spoil your vote, no problem. But the participation is necessary to keep the state on the right track. Lots of people stand idly by as harper takes over this country. You already get several hours off work if necessary to go vote. Might as well use that time.
Real resistance is not futile but there is a difference between apathy and resistance. Apathy is futile. And most non voting is caused by apathy.
[/b]

And if you want to get rid of the state, you should still participate to get it on the right track?

Cueball Cueball's picture

The point is that the overiding problem of totalitarian modernism in all its forms, democratic, socialist/communist and fascist is the essential belief that the central authority has the right to try and intervene directly in the social discourse at every level and force political compliance to the will of the ideology in totality.

For example, you brought up forcing people to quit smoking. The National Socialist regieme of Germany was in fact the first government to ban smoking in public buildings. It's a fact.

Your idea, is simply to take the central thesis of the reigning ideology, "democracy", and force absolute compliance of all persons to that ideology. The route to tyrrany is the belief that one may force all persons to a belief, simply because the people with power have concluded that not only are they right, but they have the right to enforce their beliefs on all others, because those persons are "objectively" anti-social elements, regardless of wether or not they do anything directly objectionable, other than do things like sleep in on election day.

What has traditionally been most attractive about democracy is that it has managed to avoid the tyrrany of the majority by the institution of a grand compromise that includes checks and balances, such as laws that protect the rights of the indivdual against the majority. Your desire to force people to vote rejects that "compromise" between state and indvidual, directly at the heart of what is best about "democracy".

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Cueball Cueball's picture

Not that this means I am a big fan of Liberal-democracy, but to say that it has shown itself to have some advantages in practice in the past. The present situation is very bad indeed, and "democracy" is in crisis. The lattitude of allowable debate within the party structure, makes it seem very much that even in Canada where there is a multiparty system the reality is that they operate, more or less, as factions of the same party. Now even, these factions operate effectively as organs of the state that are actually paid by the state to function.

And people are naturally dissaffected by this lack of distinction, and see voting as pointless. Mating a system of quasi-official state funded parties, with very few policy distinctions, to compulsory voting really just makes the situation worse by making voting a process where people are forced to authorize the mandate of the state to operate in the name of democracy. It is in fact a direct admission of the failure of democracy, and by no means an enhancement.

The sudden impulse of some people to force voting upon people is merely a bad solution to a growing problem, an attempt to make the process meaningful by forcing people to give it the appearance of meaning by securing large voter turnouts that can be used by the victorious faction to justify its policies in the name of "the people", even though the people don't care.

It is definitely a fascist measure that should be resisted [i]by any means necessary.[/i]

My party. The non-voter party, with a few exceptions, grows every year, as a movement that implicitly denounces our moribund system and makes a direct call for change, and real meaning in the political system.

Not voting is not just a right, it is a duty. If we can score 80 percent in some election cycle, the powers that be will recognize that they are completely bereft of the consent of the people to govern, and therefore bereft of a mandate and bereft of real control. Then there will be change.

Make your vote count: Don't vote! And above all don't vote for me. [img]cool.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Fidel

Poor Canada [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Benoit

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Really? I thought you were going to try and get the state to grab some of what's mine because you think I should vote, even though my not voting actually helps your cause because you can be absolutely sure that I would not vote for any of the neo-fascist political formulations you chose to be a part of.[/b]

Being forced to go to the poll is entirely compatible with being free to spoil YOUR ballot.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]

janfromthebruce

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Not that this means I am a big fan of Liberal-democracy, but to say that it has shown itself to have some advantages in practice in the past. The present situation is very bad indeed, and "democracy" is in crisis. The lattitude of allowable debate within the party structure, makes it seem very much that even in Canada where there is a multiparty system the reality is that they operate, more or less, as factions of the same party. Now even, these factions operate effectively as organs of the state that are actually paid by the state to function.

And people are naturally dissaffected by this lack of distinction, and see voting as pointless. Mating a system of quasi-official state funded parties, with very few policy distinctions, to compulsory voting really just makes the situation worse by making voting a process where people are forced to authorize the mandate of the state to operate in the name of democracy. It is in fact a direct admission of the failure of democracy, and by no means an enhancement.

The sudden impulse of some people to force voting upon people is merely a bad solution to a growing problem, an attempt to make the process meaningful by forcing people to give it the appearance of meaning by securing large voter turnouts that can be used by the victorious faction to justify its policies in the name of "the people", even though the people don't care.

It is definitely a fascist measure that should be resisted [i]by any means necessary.[/i]

My party. The non-voter party, with a few exceptions, grows every year, as a movement that implicitly denounces our moribund system and makes a direct call for change, and real meaning in the political system.

Not voting is not just a right, it is a duty. If we can score 80 percent in some election cycle, the powers that be will recognize that they are completely bereft of the consent of the people to govern, and therefore bereft of a mandate and bereft of real control. Then there will be change.

Make your vote count: Don't vote! And above all don't vote for me. [img]cool.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]


Actually, the belief of not voting will make those in power sit up and care is an assumption that IMV lacks historical merit and thus futuristic merit. Political parties in power and of the neoliberal/conservative bent actually profess that "less democracy is called for and not more". Suggesting not voting actually fits with the success of those "special interests" groups of powerful elites who run global capital in their interests.
It appears that they have been successful in making you believe that "your vote does not count."
And no, I don't believe in legislation that would make it mandatory for people to vote.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Not at all. The founders and maintainers of the system have put in insitutional monetary safeguards to prevent the emergence of new political tendencies.

How can any system where the state pays the political parties be called "democratic", in a system that has built in economic safeguards that prevent the emergence of new party formulations and independent candidates, a system that creates a direct liability that only really benefits the existing political organizations that were part of creating the system which rewards them and supports their political organization.

Its not enough that to register as a candidate you need to have your registration witnessed by 50 to 100 persons, which is a fair enough measure to prevent non-serious contenders, but if you fail to gain 10% of the riding vote you are punished for running.

$1000 dollars is a large amount of money for anyone from the consitutency the NDP is supposed to represent.

Thus the largest share of political energy is siphoned into the official party structures, since running indpendently or trying to found any kind of new political party is an financially burdensome task, and people are really best to pursue working within the system and organizations of the official parties. These parties, though, already restrict discourse within them, since of course they are full of already established political cliques, that have organizational control.

Throw all of that on top of the overtly biased FPTP system, and you have a poltical structure that pulls decisively, even if incrementally to the right, in order to serve the interests of those who are economically well off, since the cost of running as an independent, from the ground floor, or starting a new party is prohibative to anyone who does not have the money to fund their personal hobby.

So you have a number of official political parties which are in part funded by the state, and then those who wish to circumnavigate that system are punished severely for even attempting that.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Cueball Cueball's picture

[url=http://challengingthecommonplace.blogspot.com/2008/10/response-to-congra... to Harper & Co - I'll be a tool no more [/url]

quote:

It so expresses what I've been feeling since the results came in from the latest show produced by our federal political parties. You know the one, the $300 million production designed to fool Canadians into thinking they were participating in a democratic process.

Dana expressed the same sense of dismay I've been feeling and a profound disturbance that Canadians have allowed themselves to be so swayed.

I've been thinking all morning and over the days before and since our most recent reality TV election that I'll likely not vote in the next one.

I've done that only once before. Had been away from the country for a few years and had only just returned when a federal election was called. I was uninformed and out of touch with the issues which mattered to my riding, the province and the country and so I thought the most responsible thing to do was not vote rather than risk choosing the wrong candidate.

Next time, I am likely not to vote for equally valid reasons:


Benoit

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]
It so expresses what I've been feeling since the results came in from the latest show produced by our federal political parties. You know the one, the $300 million production designed to fool Canadians into thinking they were participating in a democratic process.
[/b]

An election that is including the Neo-Rhino party cannot fool anyone.

Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
[b]

Actually, the belief of not voting will make those in power sit up and care is an assumption that IMV lacks historical merit and thus futuristic merit. Political parties in power and of the neoliberal/conservative bent actually profess that "less democracy is called for and not more". Suggesting not voting actually fits with the success of those "special interests" groups of powerful elites who run global capital in their interests.
It appears that they have been successful in making you believe that "your vote does not count."
And no, I don't believe in legislation that would make it mandatory for people to vote.[/b]


You know what they say about casting pearls at sides of bacon. It's not worth it in this case, Jan

Cueball Cueball's picture

Very passive agressive. I disputed the "civics" lecture in detail. Can't dispute the arguement, so whip out the ol' insult.

Whatever happened to this Fidel, from last night:

quote:

Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]
Here's an idea, why don't you stop harassing me and shadowing my posts? Because then I wouldn't have to tell you to FUCK OFF every now and then.[/b]

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Fidel

I no longer to reply to disinformation jockeys, thanks.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Replying is not simply a matter of using the quote key. You commented negatively and called me a pig. That much is self evident.

It's fine, if you don't want to "reply to disinformation jockeys" but please don't derail the discussion with your passive agressive side swipes and insults.

Thanks.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:

Not voting is not just a right, it is a duty. If we can score 80 percent in some election cycle, the powers that be will recognize that they are completely bereft of the consent of the people to govern, and therefore bereft of a mandate and bereft of real control. Then there will be change.

Make your vote count: Don't vote! And above all don't vote for me. [img]cool.gif" border="0[/img]


A couple of questions. Are there any real life/historical examples of this type of action working?

Once the powers that be realize they don't have a mandate and freak out then what exactly? Change? What sort of change?

Cueball Cueball's picture

Sure there are. For example. British democracy began as a functioning entity where the only people who voted were the propertied classes. Others who did not own property were enfranchised only after it became clear that the powers that be that they no longer had a mandate to govern, and their governance was threatened. That non-voting populace was a very powerful force lurking at the margins of political power. It was considered better to enfranchise all, as opposed to forcing the issue with the army and the police -- though there has been plenty of that too.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Sure there are. For example. British democracy began as a functioning entity where the only people who voted were the propertied classes. Others who did not own property were enfranchised only after it became clear that the powers that be that they no longer had a mandate to govern, and their governance was threatened. It was considered better to enfranchise all, as opposed to forcing the issue with the army and the police -- though there has been plenty of that too.[/b]

Yes but this example is about the evolution of democracy into an established order. I mean I suppose one could consider it in a linear fashion that by reversing the process that would lead to some change (which is debatable because social systems don't behave that way) but to what end exactly?
You say change? Again what change? Onces the order is broken down, then what do you propose to do or demand in order to be reenfranchised? What new order are you after? A particular system, 'socialism', communinism, something or otherinism that we haven't thought of yet?

Brian White

I agree. Another thing. Cueball mentions the non voting party as if all the people who do not vote, do not vote because they are not confident in the system.
And Harper believes that those who did not vote are happy with his rule and have great confidence in the system! He has as much evidence as Cueball has for his view.
I believe lots of people do not vote because they are too darn lazy or too confused by attack ads. (Lots of hairy chested alpha male liberals could not bring themselves to go to the voting station and vote for dion's party cos of his weak chin and slumping sholders).
Non voters can be defined as younger and poorer than voters (on average).
So another way to improve the statistics is to raise the voting age.

quote:

Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]

Being forced to go to the poll is entirely compatible with being free to spoil YOUR ballot.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ][/b]


Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by ElizaQ:
[b]

Yes but this example is about the evolution of democracy into an established order. I mean I suppose one could consider it in a linear fashion that by reversing the process that would lead to some change (which is debatable because social systems don't behave that way) but to what end exactly?
You say change? Again what change? Onces the order is broken down, then what do you propose to do or demand in order to be reenfranchised? What new order are you after? A particular system, 'socialism', communinism, something or otherinism that we haven't thought of yet?[/b]


The order has broken down.

Incrementally over time, the processes that were put in place to ensure that the continuing control of the system was not in the hands of the poorest segments of society, by putting concrete economic blockades in the way of their participation, has acted to disenfranchise them, while maintaining the appearance of their being enfranchised.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]

The order has broken down.

Incrementally over time, the processes that were put in place to ensure that the continuing control of the system was not in the hands of the poorest segments of society, by putting concrete economic blockades in the way of their participation, has acted to disenfranchise them, while maintaining the appearance of their being enfranchised.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]


Oh so it's already at your end goal? Didn't you say it was *going* to happen? Slightly confusing...okay, so what is the change you talked about the end goal leading too and where is it coming from exactly?

Benoit

To force people to go to the poll, one has to find a good counter-argument to the following argument (often expressed by non-voters): the probability that my vote will change the outcome of the election is nil. The best counter-argument is: if everyone were thinking like that, politics would not be democratic anymore.

genstrike

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]Non voters can be defined as younger and poorer than voters (on average).
So another way to improve the statistics is to raise the voting age.
[/b]

Now we get right down to the crux of the matter. You don't want to change the system to restore people's confidence in the system, you only want to improve the turnout statistics so it appears that people are confident in the system, and it dies not matter to you if it is by forcing people to vote or not letting them vote.

genstrike

quote:


Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]To force people to go to the poll, one has to find a good counter-argument to the following argument (often expressed by non-voters): the probability that my vote will change the outcome of the election is nil. The best counter-argument is: if everyone were thinking like that, politics would not be democratic anymore.[/b]

The probability that my vote will elect an anti-capitalist party that I can believe in is exactly zero.

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by ElizaQ:
[b]

Oh so it's already at your end goal? Didn't you say it was *going* to happen? Slightly confusing...okay, so what is the change you talked about the end goal leading too and where is it coming from exactly?[/b]


No where other than the renovation of the process. The goal is a fair and democratic society, where economic factors do not enter into the issue of ones enfranchisement as an unreasonable block against political power. What else?

A society, whatever you want to call it "capitalist", "socialist", "democratic" or whatever are determined not by the ideologies that the purport to hold, [i]but the ideologies as expressed in the proccess of their functioning.[/i]

An abstract "idealized" ideology acts as nothing more than a tool of critical analysis by which one measures the state of the society, against its ideals. In this case the idea that Canada can lay claim to the title of a "democratic" society falls remarkably short of its "objective" goals.

Other issues such as the proper management of the wealth of people, and a persons relationship to the state and capital, can not truly be dealt with until all persons are enfranchized within the decision making process. That becomes the work in progress. But enfranchisment does not merely mean the ability to vote, but also that ones vote has meaning.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]

The goal is a fair and democratic society. What else?

A society, whatever you want to call it "capitalist", "socialist", "democratic" or whatever are determined not by the ideologies that the purport to hold, but the ideologies as expressed in the proccess of their functioning.

An abstract "idealized" ideology on acts as nothing more than a tool of critical analysis by which one measures the state of the society, against its ideals. In this case the idea that Canada can lay claim to the title of a "democratic" society falls remarkably short of its "objective" goals.

Other issues such as the proper management of the wealth of people, and a persons relationship to the state and capital, can not truly be dealt with until all persons are enfranchised within the process, and that becomes the work in progress. But enfranchisment does not merely mean the ability to vote, but also that ones vote has meaning.[/b]


Sorry Cueball, that's all fancy sounding and lurvly and feel good and all that, but really it doesn't answer my question as to what exactly you are attempting to accomplish by large numbers of people not voting and how that change is actually supposed to happen.

You say here well a democratic society of course.

I'm asking how exactly by not voting that these powers that be are suddenly going to freak out because they don't have a mandate, and figure out the reason for the supposed lack of that mandate, and in turn figure what you want? How will they know? What change beyond just going to ballot box is going to make that actually happen? Where is your voice? How are you going to tell them? What are the tactics for accomplishing that change if it isn't voting?

Writing on message boards like babble? Taking to the streets? Civic or community organizations? Letters to the editor? How exactly?

Cueball Cueball's picture

Suddenly freak out? Aren't you freaking out right now. Aren't NDP'rs, Liberals, and Greenies, and even our neo-fascist friend running all over this thread demanding that democracy be saved by forcing persons to vote for it? What else is that but a clear message that they are worried about the fact that the system that they aspire to control has no real mandate to govern, and in fact are seeking to remedy that by removing peoples right not to vote.

I'd say it pretty clear that elements in all of the official factions are highly concerned about the issue of non-voting, and non-voters, because more than 50 percent of the Canadian people do not recognize their political authority.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

CMOT Dibbler

Has there ever been a time in the whole history of North American democracy when it was entirely egalitarian?

Cueball Cueball's picture

Of course not, but there is a confusion between ends and means, and one of the great failure of modernism has been the projection of idealized goals as the final end-point product of a struggle, and very little focus on the process by which we act. In my view, our goals should be better processess, not abstracted ideaological end points.

Not the ends justify the means, the ends [i]are[/i] the means.

Wether or not North American society has ever been strictly egalitarean is not the issue, because obviously it has not. But the fact is, the democratic system which gave this society its ability to evolve has been deeply corroded, and it is far less functional as a vehicle for egalitarean public political processes than it was 50 or even 20 years ago.

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Suddenly freak out? Aren't you freaking out right now. Aren't NDP'rs, Liberals, and Greenies, and even our neo-fascist friend running all over this thread demanding that democracy be saved by forcing persons to vote for it? What else is that but a clear message that they are worried about the fact that the system that they aspire to control has no real mandate to govern, and in fact are seeking to remedy that by removing peoples right not to vote.

I'd say it pretty clear that elements in all of the official factions are highly concerned about the issue of non-voting, and non-voters, because more than 50 percent of the Canadian people do not recognize their political authority.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]


Um no. I'm not freaking out and I don't think that others are freaking out, but it's interesting that you equate the posters here as the 'powers that be' of your theory I was specially asking questions about as well as how you are perceiving it.

You still haven't answered my question on how exactly you think this 'change' is going to occur. Tactics...
Though I suppose I can infer from the non-answer yet again and you pointing to this thread as an example of the fallout that talking on a board like babble must be one of them.

CMOT Dibbler

quote:


I'd say it pretty clear that elements in all of the official factions are highly concerned about the issue of non-voting, and non-voters, because more than 50 percent of the Canadian people do not recognize their political authority.

I don't think Canadians are as revolutionarily minded as you think they are(well, at least not 50% of them)

Politics is boring. Discussing political topics is fun but when you get down to the nuts and bolts of getting informed and/or getting someone elected(door knocking, canvassing, volunteering your time in order to show people how to door knock and canvass) the process is pretty
tedious. it's much more interesting to watch TV or go camping or play with your kids. It a rare person who attends all of the meetings and is truly comitted.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

Cueball Cueball's picture

Increased non-voting is the tactic.

Do I really have to point to all the threads on this board where proportional representation, is directly indicated as a means of increasing voter interest?

And as far as the relationship to this board, and those on it. Sure, the powers that be are on this board. I know you don't like to think of the NDP as being one of the factions of the powers that be, but as you can see my analysis and yours, are not congruent. I indeed do see the entrenched power of the state operating on this board, and we know for a fact that many party activist post regularly on this board, and even Jack Layton's campaign manager too.

But yeah, you are definetly with the establishement, and one of its agents and one of its public defenders. The fact that the NDP poses itself as in opposition to power, is in fact, in my view, its primary function in the system, because it acts as a sop for public discontent, which it diffuses by displaceing of a huge amount of political energy, and money, into the totally vein act of getting people to put checks marks on little pieces of paper that give the state its legitimacy.

How much is the NDP paid for each check mark it aquires?

As for venues and modes of action, there are many. And this is one of them. Here I am.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

CMOT Dibbler

It's odd, you accuse us all of being schills and bastards, but yoy have said that you would vote for Duceppe. Is he not an agent of the system?

Cueball Cueball's picture

Sure. But he is funny.

Duceppe: "In Canada there are two official languages, English and simultaneous translation."

He also wants to break up the country which is probably a step in the right direction.

ETA: I didn't call you a bastard.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Fidel

And nobody called you a gutless Liberal schill either.

CMOT Dibbler

quote:


As for venues and modes of action, there are many. And this is one of them. Here I am.

With all the people you know, with all the struggles you've been involved in, you could have chosen a far more effective way to spread the anarchist gospel.

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]And nobody called you a gutless Liberal schill either.[/b]

Very passive agressive. I disputed the "civics" lecture in detail. Can't dispute the arguement, so whip out the ol' insult.

Whatever happened to this Fidel, from last night:

quote:

Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]
Here's an idea, why don't you stop harassing me and shadowing my posts? Because then I wouldn't have to tell you to FUCK OFF every now and then.[/b]

Pages

Topic locked