Compulsory voting (part 3)

93 posts / 0 new
Last post
ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

quote:


Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
[b]

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.[/b]


Is that what it is? If so, the explanations makes more sense now.

eta: I should clarify. Don't mean that in a snarky way as a put down, just that knowing that (if true) helps me understand better.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: ElizaQ ]

Cueball Cueball's picture

I am glad you think things are clearer now. I am still confused, unfortunately.

Firstly, I would like you to clarify is how you can genuinely support a political process that is overtly skewed too maintaining the status quo, in favour of the interests of the well-to-do? On the elections Canada web site is says that the object is to create a "level playing field". However on the very same page is explicitly excludes people who can't afford to throw $1000 at the government every 4 years for the privilege of becoming a candidate. This biases the sytem against the poorer members of society and relegates them to the status of volunteer foot soldiers, or mere voters, for the established factions who are paid handsomely for each vote they aquire.

Secondly can you also clarify for me why such a system does not progessively shift the agenda of the entire system (including the quasi-independent subsidiary state organs we like to call "political parties") away from those items that might benefit the interests of those who are relegated to the status of mere voters and foot soldies because it is economically unfeasible for them to field effective competition to the existing state funded (and therefore controlled) political organs?

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

CMOT Dibbler

quote:


Increased non-voting is the tactic.

For some, yes it is. But you can't convince me that 50% of Canadians have the same agenda that you do.

quote:

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?

This is Canada. The last time Canadians elected a truly radical government(Tommy, where the hell are ya!?) there was a depression. We are a very centrist country, politics just isn't a part of our culture. We don't have 200 years of socialism behind us like france, or a dictatorship we are desperatly trying to forget like Spain and Germany, and with all the other things Canadians can do with there time, what would motivate them to listen to our leaders talk about politics?

When it comes right down to it, radical leaders(the Hugo Chavezes and Lapasionarias of this world) only come to power in times of desperation.

quote:

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.

The NDP is in bad shape. We have a grey man in a grey suit for leader whose wife marches for Israel and dosen't apologize for her actions. The party is trying to attract middle and upper middle class voters while ignoring the fact that those two groups are already represented by the Libs and the Cons.

There is possibility that the party can be saved, but finding a Jimmy Maxton to lead the NDP in a country as dull and prosperous as Canada, may be a challenge.

As for being part of the esablishment, Yes, partially I am. But we're all stuck in the same neo liberal morass, so don't get too high and mighty.

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

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

Cueball Cueball's picture

We are all part of the establishement, to a greater or less degree. It's theoretical point, but I just want to clarify where that point is coming from.

CMOT Dibbler

You are going to clarify what you said?

Benoit

genstrike wrote:

quote:


Originally posted by 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.


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

Your statement only proves (with a probability of one) that you don't deserve your wish for an anti-capitalist party to be realized. 

Jacob Two-Two

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."

No. That's an argument you would use if you wanted to persuade people to go to the polls, because when you persuade, you use arguments. That's not what you're advocating. You want to force them to the polls, which requires no arguments. Just the rule of law, which, as Cueball has pointed out, only has validity with the threat of violence. The whole point of democracy is to substitute persuasion for violence as an agent of social change. You want to undermine that by using violence to control how people use their vote.

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

 It isn't, actually, because it's not MY ballot if you get to tell me how to use it. If something is mine, I can do what I like with it. I can smash it, throw it away, whatever. Imagine someone gave you a car, and said, you can drive it wherever you like, but you can't sell it or wreck it. It's not really your car, is it? You have limited control of it, but obviously not ownership. It's on loan from whoever this person is who has the authority to tell you you're not allowed to sell it. That authority really makes it his car, whether or not you're driving it. It's the same authority that you want to have over my democratic franchise, telling me what I can and can't do with it.

 I would prefer an honest fascist to someone like you who wants to "save" democracy with his iron fist.

 

 

Brian White

The home owner who I am currently working for was born in switzerland.  but emigrated as a child.  He wished to keep his swiss citizenship when he grew up.  So he had to do his time in the swiss army. (I think all swiss males still have to do army time).

I hope that might put compulsory voting in perspective for some people.  I  did not like the idea myself  at first but I worked with an australian who was completely in favour of it.  If you are allowed to spoil your vote and have the spoil registered as a spoil, I see no problems at all with it.

Benoit

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

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."

No. That's an argument you would use if you wanted to persuade people to go to the polls, because when you persuade, you use arguments. That's not what you're advocating. You want to force them to the polls, which requires no arguments. Just the rule of law, which, as Cueball has pointed out, only has validity with the threat of violence. The whole point of democracy is to substitute persuasion for violence as an agent of social change. You want to undermine that by using violence to control how people use their vote.

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

 It isn't, actually, because it's not MY ballot if you get to tell me how to use it. If something is mine, I can do what I like with it. I can smash it, throw it away, whatever. Imagine someone gave you a car, and said, you can drive it wherever you like, but you can't sell it or wreck it. It's not really your car, is it? You have limited control of it, but obviously not ownership. It's on loan from whoever this person is who has the authority to tell you you're not allowed to sell it. That authority really makes it his car, whether or not you're driving it. It's the same authority that you want to have over my democratic franchise, telling me what I can and can't do with it.

 I would prefer an honest fascist to someone like you who wants to "save" democracy with his iron fist.

 

 

 

- Deliberative democracy is only about the persuading force of the better argument.

 

- Giving up your vote would be like voluntarily enslaving yourself to another person.

 

janfromthebruce

Cueball wrote:
Firstly, I would like you to clarify is how you can genuinely support a political process that is overtly skewed too maintaining the status quo, in favour of the interests of the well-to-do? On the elections Canada web site is says that the object is to create a "level playing field". However on the very same page is explicitly excludes people who can't afford to throw $1000 at the government every 4 years for the privilege of becoming a candidate. This biases the sytem against the poorer members of society and relegates them to the status of volunteer foot soldiers, or mere voters, for the established factions who are paid handsomely for each vote they aquire.

Secondly can you also clarify for me why such a system does not progessively shift the agenda of the entire system (including the quasi-independent subsidiary state organs we like to call "political parties") away from those items that might benefit the interests of those who are relegated to the status of mere voters and foot soldies because it is economically unfeasible for them to field effective competition to the existing state funded (and therefore controlled) political organs?

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Cueball, if you were to run as an NDP candidate and won the nomination, the NDP riding association pays the 1000 dollars, and not you personally. I just wanted to clear that up for you. So yes, people within the NDP can run who are economically challenged, and yes, they do win nomination races.

Jacob Two-Two

"Deliberative democracy is about the persuading force of the better argument."


So then use arguments, not force. Persuade people to vote. If you force them, that's not democracy, as you just said.

"Giving up your vote would be like voluntarily enslaving yourself to another person."

Yes, well, that's precisely why I have no intention of giving up my vote to your authority, to instruct me in whether or not I'm using it properly. I will use it as I see fit, including not using it if I so choose. If I allowed you to take that option away from me, I really would be enslaving myself.

 You will never, ever control my vote, fascist, so give up your dreams of making the polls run on time.

 

And Brian. I already explained why voting is not a social responsibility like some might consider military service to be. I'm actually a big believer in social responsibility, but your vote is the opposite of a responsibility. It is what you get in return for submitting yourself to society's authority. If others can control how you use it, (or don't, as the case may be) then it isn't really yours, and we're right back to tyranny.

 It's a very fine line that's all too easy to step over. Stay on the side of good, Brian. Don't try to enforce the "proper behaviour" of voting, as defined by you. You don't have that right.

 

 

Benoit

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

"Deliberative democracy is about the persuading force of the better argument."


So then use arguments, not force. Persuade people to vote. If you force them, that's not democracy, as you just said.

"Giving up your vote would be like voluntarily enslaving yourself to another person."

Yes, well, that's precisely why I have no intention of giving up my vote to your authority, to instruct me in whether or not I'm using it properly. I will use it as I see fit, including not using it if I so choose. If I allowed you to take that option away from me, I really would be enslaving myself.

 You will never, ever control my vote, fascist, so give up your dreams of making the polls run on time.

 

 

- On a discussion forum, I can only try to persuade people.

 

- I'd have authority on you only if you give me your vote.

 

genstrike

Benoit wrote:

- Giving up your vote would be like voluntarily enslaving yourself to another person.

No, living in a capitalist system is like involuntarily enslaving myself to another person.  Voting is not a liberating act.

And maybe it is just a coincidence, but I can't believe that I'm the first person to notice this with all the fascist talk, but Benoit?  Benito?

 

 

janfromthebruce wrote:

Cueball, if you were to run as an NDP candidate and won the nomination,
the NDP riding association pays the 1000 dollars, and not you
personally. I just wanted to clear that up for you. So yes, people
within the NDP can run who are economically challenged, and yes, they
do win nomination races.

But, you would have to run in a party that is already established, has that policy, and has the bank account (from donors who have the money to give or from the per vote subsidies) to back it up.  Even if I wanted to become a member of the NDP I would never win a nomination without years of concealing my true politics.  That is, unless they are desperate for a candidate in a no-hope seat, and even then I would probably be too radical for them.  But me winning the provincial NDP for my relatively safe NDP riding - forget about it.

What if I wanted to run for a smaller party that doesn't have that kind of money, or as an independent?

 

Benoit

Cueball wrote:
Persons, especially those from the poorer segements of our society are prevented from forwarding themselves as candidates competing with the established parties. Instead they are relegated to the role of mere voters or foot soldiers.

Of course we will be told that working your way up in the party structure is just part ot the process, but that is irrelevant. The party structure enforces a pre-established agenda, and policy outline already, which persons must, more or less conform too.  Not to mention the existance of established power blocks within the party.

Changing the party from within is the bait that is thrown to those who dissent from the adopted agenda. But the fact remains that the party itself depends largely on the largesse, not only of the government, but also those well-to-do donors who keep the party functioning in all its facets in and out of elections cycles, and those persons, quite naturally have interests which influence the party.

So, from top-to-bottom, in the election process, the internal organizational realities of the official parties skews the agenda away from those who are the least well off in our society, slowly and inexonerably toward what we call the right.

You have merely made the agruement, which co-opts those political activists from the lower strata of the society by promising, more often than not, the lesser of two evils on the basis that the worst outcome can be prevented.

"Preventing the worst outcome" is not progressive. Progressive is changing what exists now and making it better.

 

With no money, I am here and now founding a new federal political party with a program promising perpetual world peace.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Yes, the peace of the grave.

Benoit

Cueball wrote:
Yes, the peace of the grave.

Perpetual Peace: A program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_peace 

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm

 

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:
Cueball wrote:
Firstly, I would like you to clarify is how you can genuinely support a political process that is overtly skewed too maintaining the status quo, in favour of the interests of the well-to-do? On the elections Canada web site is says that the object is to create a "level playing field". However on the very same page is explicitly excludes people who can't afford to throw $1000 at the government every 4 years for the privilege of becoming a candidate. This biases the sytem against the poorer members of society and relegates them to the status of volunteer foot soldiers, or mere voters, for the established factions who are paid handsomely for each vote they aquire.

Secondly can you also clarify for me why such a system does not progessively shift the agenda of the entire system (including the quasi-independent subsidiary state organs we like to call "political parties") away from those items that might benefit the interests of those who are relegated to the status of mere voters and foot soldies because it is economically unfeasible for them to field effective competition to the existing state funded (and therefore controlled) political organs?

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Cueball, if you were to run as an NDP candidate and won the nomination, the NDP riding association pays the 1000 dollars, and not you personally. I just wanted to clear that up for you. So yes, people within the NDP can run who are economically challenged, and yes, they do win nomination races.

 

Of course. And what of it? That is precisely the point. Persons, especially those from the poorer segements of our society are prevented from forwarding themselves as candidates competing with the established parties. Instead they are relegated to the role of mere voters or foot soldiers.

Of course we will be told that working your way up in the party structure is just part ot the process, but that is irrelevant. The party structure enforces a pre-established agenda, and policy outline already, which persons must, more or less conform too.  Not to mention the existance of established power blocks within the party.

Changing the party from within is the bait that is thrown to those who dissent from the adopted agenda. But the fact remains that the party itself depends largely on the largesse, not only of the government, but also those well-to-do donors who keep the party functioning in all its facets in and out of elections cycles, and those persons, quite naturally have interests which influence the party. That is aside from the fact that the well healed have time to go to meetings, attend workshops, and otherwise manage the party so that it does not ever seriously undermine their interests.

So, from top-to-bottom, in the election process, the internal organizational realities of the official parties skews the agenda away from those who are the least well off in our society, slowly and inexonerably toward what we call the right.

You have merely made the agruement, which co-opts those political activists from the lower strata of the society by promising, more often than not, the lesser of two evils on the basis that the worst outcome can be prevented.

"Preventing the worst outcome" is not progressive. Progressive is changing what exists now and making it better.

 If the NDP were truly interested in benefitting those who most need the support of our society, they would first and foremost take on those issues that directly affect their ability to enter the political arena as full enfranchised participants by demanding the election deposits be pro-rated for income, or dropped altogether, and making the elimination of the FPTP the central theme of its policy platform, even if this this actually was detrimental to the parties long term prospects. But no, the NDP cynically offers up progressive sounding anti-poverty statements, and worker positive platform positions, aimed at attracting votes from the underclass of our society, rather than energizing them and empowering them to stand for themselves.

Cueball Cueball's picture

I'd rather vote for the Conservatives.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Benoit wrote:
Jacob Two-Two wrote:

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."

No. That's an argument you would use if you wanted to persuade people to go to the polls, because when you persuade, you use arguments. That's not what you're advocating. You want to force them to the polls, which requires no arguments. Just the rule of law, which, as Cueball has pointed out, only has validity with the threat of violence. The whole point of democracy is to substitute persuasion for violence as an agent of social change. You want to undermine that by using violence to control how people use their vote.

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

It isn't, actually, because it's not MY ballot if you get to tell me how to use it. If something is mine, I can do what I like with it. I can smash it, throw it away, whatever. Imagine someone gave you a car, and said, you can drive it wherever you like, but you can't sell it or wreck it. It's not really your car, is it? You have limited control of it, but obviously not ownership. It's on loan from whoever this person is who has the authority to tell you you're not allowed to sell it. That authority really makes it his car, whether or not you're driving it. It's the same authority that you want to have over my democratic franchise, telling me what I can and can't do with it.

I would prefer an honest fascist to someone like you who wants to "save" democracy with his iron fist.

 

 

 

- Deliberative democracy is only about the persuading force of the better argument.

 

- Giving up your vote would be like voluntarily enslaving yourself to another person.

 

Uh... No. It would be like making sense of the sensless. Speaking of which, there doesn't seem to be much point in weighing in a vote on your opinions.

Benoit

Cueball wrote:
I'd rather vote for the Conservatives.

The Conservatives will vote for this new Party. 

Cueball Cueball's picture

No they won't. You don't have any money.

genstrike

Benoit wrote:

Cueball wrote:
Yes, the peace of the grave.

Perpetual Peace: A program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_peace 

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm

 

 Tip:  people already thing you're a fascist in disguise.  Stop digging.

Benoit

genstrike wrote:

Tip:  people already thing you're a fascist in disguise.  Stop digging.

You are confusing k and g.

Benoit

Cueball wrote:

No they won't. You don't have any money.

Money is only a form of trust and our new party promises to mint it.

 

 

Benoit

Cueball wrote:
arguement.

agreement or what?

Cueball Cueball's picture

Spelling flames are the last resort of those who know they have lost and arguement.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Arguement.

Benoit

Cueball wrote:

...have lost and arguement.

an argument or what!?

Benoit

Cueball wrote:

Spelling flames are the last resort of those who know they have lost and arguement.

 

"Edit it" is a diktat.

Benoit

"Compulsory voting is right" is not a diktat.

Cueball Cueball's picture

An arguement. Your repeated attempt to get points for correcting typos, is a supercilious as your freshman renderings of early enlightenment philosophy. It's prevarication on point, because you can not win arguement on the substance of the discussion.

 Sorry.

We don't have time. You are either in the debate or out. It looks like you're out.

Benoit

"Compulsory voting is right" is a thesis and a belief.

Jacob Two-Two

I'm sorry, Benoit. I thought you were just a pig-headed ideologue, but I'm getting the impression that you're actually an idiot. You're not ignoring the points of others. You just don't understand what people are saying. None of your responses have addressed any of the points I've made. I'll make one more stab and then leave you alone with your fantasies of being a benevolent dictator.

 " On a discussion forum, I can only try to persuade people."

 Obviously. My point is that you would like to do far more. You would like to force people to vote when they don't want to. That's why I said you should use persuasion instead of force. Not because of what you are doing, but because of what you would like to do. That should have been evident.

 " I'd have authority on you only if you give me your vote."

 You would have authority over my vote if I didn't stop you from making voting mandatory. You would have prevented me from exercising the option not to vote if I chose to. Again, this was very clear, and again, you are responding a manner that leads me to believe that you have no comprehension skills.

 Anyway, I'm done with you. Good luck with that party of yours (where's my roll-eyes smiley?) 

Benoit

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

 " On a discussion forum, I can only try to persuade people."

 Obviously. My point is that you would like to do far more. You would like to force people to vote when they don't want to. That's why I said you should use persuasion instead of force. Not because of what you are doing, but because of what you would like to do. That should have been evident.

 " I'd have authority on you only if you give me your vote."

 You would have authority over my vote if I didn't stop you from making voting mandatory. You would have prevented me from exercising the option not to vote if I chose to. Again, this was very clear, and again, you are responding a manner that leads me to believe that you have no comprehension skills.

 Anyway, I'm done with you. Good luck with that party of yours (where's my roll-eyes smiley?) 

 

- You cannot know what I would like to do unless I tell you.

 

- You didn't stop me from trying to make voting mandatory.

 

genstrike

Benoit wrote:

- You cannot know what I would like to do unless I tell you.

You have been telling us what you would like to do regarding voting for almost three whole threads!

Benoit

genstrike wrote:
Benoit wrote:

- You cannot know what I would like to do unless I tell you.

You have been telling us what you would like to do regarding voting for almost three whole threads!

I will tell you again and as long as it takes for you to understand: I would love to motivate people to force themselves to do what is right.

Jacob Two-Two

Maybe english is his third or fourth language. Back to the library for Beniot. Get some of those literacy paperbacks. They're really good when you're just learning.

Benoit

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
Maybe english is ...

 

With a capital e please.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Well, you have moved from simplistic renderings of 18th century pie-in-the-sky philosophy, to redundant grammar and spelling lessons. This is a message board. Not a grammar class. You started this topic, it would kind of you to stay somewhere within the realm of the subject you began.

 Thanks.

Benoit

Cueball wrote:
  18th century pie-in-the-sky philosophy

Try not to confuse philosophy and religion.

Cueball Cueball's picture

I am not convinced of that you are aware of that distinction at all. European philosophy, particularly of the generation you are interested in, inherits its tradition from religious philosphy, of which I would think you are a student because so much of it is about devining logical conundrums founded in apriori assertions seemingly grabbed out of thin air.

Michelle

The end.

Pages

Topic locked