Soldiers: heroes?

[Robert_S]

You'd vote for single issue (or really small issue set) third party candidates enough to make the primary parties pay attention to the issues. In some places the independents would win, but really the "loser" major party just as the legislative Democrats at the moment would consider adopting the single issue item into their arsenal and those candidates would win primaries or else the major parties would continue to lose a percentage of votes to the third party. The longest possible odds would be that the independent candidates win enough elections that one of the "major" parties is properly displaced. That's how I think the average American citizen could act in order to influence government behavior.

The main party, in the US, the republicrats, will never change policy based on anything like that. I like you optimism when it comes to party politics, but the system ("democracy") is set up to rule in favor of corporate elites, not individuals.

It is because so many people are perfectly happy to let the corporate elites rule.

[sandinista]

You'd vote for single issue (or really small issue set) third party candidates enough to make the primary parties pay attention to the issues. In some places the independents would win, but really the "loser" major party just as the legislative Democrats at the moment would consider adopting the single issue item into their arsenal and those candidates would win primaries or else the major parties would continue to lose a percentage of votes to the third party. The longest possible odds would be that the independent candidates win enough elections that one of the "major" parties is properly displaced. That's how I think the average American citizen could act in order to influence government behavior.

The main party, in the US, the republicrats, will never change policy based on anything like that. I like you optimism when it comes to party politics, but the system ("democracy") is set up to rule in favor of corporate elites, not individuals.

It is because so many people are perfectly happy to let the corporate elites rule.

True, to a certain extent. There are also a LOT of people who do not, mainly those who do not vote because of the obvious sham it has become.

[Ian]

True, to a certain extent. There are also a LOT of people who do not, mainly those who do not vote because of the obvious sham it has become.

I'm not going to get into a debate about voting being a sham, but it seems to me that those who don't vote aren't the ones who are smart enough to think that it might be a sham. Generally speaking, the more educated you are, the more likely you are to be interested and involved in the elections process, even if you're cynical enough to call it a "sham". There's plenty of people who don't give a damn and don't bother to vote, but I don't for a minute believe that most of those non-voters are only non-voters because they're clever enough to see through the process, and so they sit it out. The opposite is closer to the truth.

[sandinista]

True, to a certain extent. There are also a LOT of people who do not, mainly those who do not vote because of the obvious sham it has become.

I'm not going to get into a debate about voting being a sham, but it seems to me that those who don't vote aren't the ones who are smart enough to think that it might be a sham. Generally speaking, the more educated you are, the more likely you are to be interested and involved in the elections process, even if you're cynical enough to call it a "sham". There's plenty of people who don't give a damn and don't bother to vote, but I don't for a minute believe that most of those non-voters are only non-voters because they're clever enough to see through the process, and so they sit it out. The opposite is closer to the truth.

no...any proof of that? Those who don't vote are smart enough to know that voting for one of two parties with the same policies is, not only a waste of time, but, in fact, only goes to validate a corrupt, pathetic sham of a system.

[Ian]

True, to a certain extent. There are also a LOT of people who do not, mainly those who do not vote because of the obvious sham it has become.

I'm not going to get into a debate about voting being a sham, but it seems to me that those who don't vote aren't the ones who are smart enough to think that it might be a sham. Generally speaking, the more educated you are, the more likely you are to be interested and involved in the elections process, even if you're cynical enough to call it a "sham". There's plenty of people who don't give a damn and don't bother to vote, but I don't for a minute believe that most of those non-voters are only non-voters because they're clever enough to see through the process, and so they sit it out. The opposite is closer to the truth.

no...any proof of that? Those who don't vote are smart enough to know that voting for one of two parties with the same policies is, not only a waste of time, but, in fact, only goes to validate a corrupt, pathetic sham of a system.

Look up some demographics. Voter turnout increases with education and with age, plain and simple. There's a very clear correlation. For the most part, the non-voters aren't the clever ones.
Maybe it is a messed-up system, but what good does boycotting it do? Zilch. It doesn't undermine its validity one bit.

EDIT: Since you asked for proof, a few statistics on the matter:
Voter turnout in the US based on education
No High School 38 %
Some High School 43%
High School Graduate 57%
Some College 66%
College Grad 79%
Post-Graduate 84%

I'd say that's a pretty clear correlation!

[sandinista]

True, to a certain extent. There are also a LOT of people who do not, mainly those who do not vote because of the obvious sham it has become.

I'm not going to get into a debate about voting being a sham, but it seems to me that those who don't vote aren't the ones who are smart enough to think that it might be a sham. Generally speaking, the more educated you are, the more likely you are to be interested and involved in the elections process, even if you're cynical enough to call it a "sham". There's plenty of people who don't give a damn and don't bother to vote, but I don't for a minute believe that most of those non-voters are only non-voters because they're clever enough to see through the process, and so they sit it out. The opposite is closer to the truth.

no...any proof of that? Those who don't vote are smart enough to know that voting for one of two parties with the same policies is, not only a waste of time, but, in fact, only goes to validate a corrupt, pathetic sham of a system.

Look up some demographics. Voter turnout increases with education and with age, plain and simple. There's a very clear correlation. For the most part, the non-voters aren't the clever ones.
Maybe it is a messed-up system, but what good does boycotting it do? Zilch. It doesn't undermine its validity one bit.

EDIT: Since you asked for proof, a few statistics on the matter:
Voter turnout in the US based on education
No High School 38 %
Some High School 43%
High School Graduate 57%
Some College 66%
College Grad 79%
Post-Graduate 84%

I'd say that's a pretty clear correlation!

Of course low voter turnout undermines validity. I would say your "clear correlation" may have more to do with class than anything else. I also wouldn't say that education necessarily equates intelligence.

[Ian]

no...any proof of that? Those who don't vote are smart enough to know that voting for one of two parties with the same policies is, not only a waste of time, but, in fact, only goes to validate a corrupt, pathetic sham of a system.

Look up some demographics. Voter turnout increases with education and with age, plain and simple. There's a very clear correlation. For the most part, the non-voters aren't the clever ones.
Maybe it is a messed-up system, but what good does boycotting it do? Zilch. It doesn't undermine its validity one bit.

EDIT: Since you asked for proof, a few statistics on the matter:
Voter turnout in the US based on education
No High School 38 %
Some High School 43%
High School Graduate 57%
Some College 66%
College Grad 79%
Post-Graduate 84%

I'd say that's a pretty clear correlation!

Of course low voter turnout undermines validity. I would say your "clear correlation" may have more to do with class than anything else. I also wouldn't say that education necessarily equates intelligence.

Sigh. Again, I'm going to have to print some statistics:

Voter Turnout in the US Based on Income (quintile)[/b
]Lowest 20%: 36.4
52
59
67
Highest 20%: 63.1

So it's also true that higher income levels affect voter turnout, but it's not quite as sharp or as uniform as the education factor. Also, education is also linked to income. Also, education is linked to intelligence. Of course there are outliers to any demographic group; education does not always equate to intelligence, and intelligence does not always equate to participation, etc. But numbers are numbers. Bottom line: The most important socioeconomic factor in voter turnout is education. The more educated a person is, the more likely he or she is to vote, even when controlled for other factors such as income and class. Cynics who think it's all just nothing but a sham, however, may be found within each category.

[sandinista]

:sighsm:

again, all you are saying is that the more "educated" a person is the more "likely" they are to vote. That goes nowhere in proving that individuals who do not vote are not doing so out of the knowledge that a vote is meaningless when the two parties are two wings of the corporate oligarchy. People, regardless of education, are not too "ignorant" to vote, as you seem to think.

[Ian]

again, all you are saying is that the more "educated" a person is the more "likely" they are to vote. That goes nowhere in proving that individuals who do not vote are not doing so out of the knowledge that a vote is meaningless when the two parties are two wings of the corporate oligarchy. People, regardless of education, are not too "ignorant" to vote, as you seem to think.

Ignorance does not always equate to political apathy, but there's a correlary trend there as well. Just because you're both relatively educated and interested in/cynical of modern democracy doesn't mean that's the norm. The numbers show that you're an outlier statistic, which is fine.

Unless you're going with the "word of the prophets are written on the subway walls" logic. In which case, screw the statistics - I ain't gonna argue with Simon & Garfunkel.

[sandinista]

again, all you are saying is that the more "educated" a person is the more "likely" they are to vote. That goes nowhere in proving that individuals who do not vote are not doing so out of the knowledge that a vote is meaningless when the two parties are two wings of the corporate oligarchy. People, regardless of education, are not too "ignorant" to vote, as you seem to think.

Ignorance does not always equate to political apathy, but there's a correlary trend there as well. Just because you're both relatively educated and interested in/cynical of modern democracy doesn't mean that's the norm. The numbers show that you're an outlier statistic, which is fine.

Unless you're going with the "word of the prophets are written on the subway walls" logic. In which case, screw the statistics - I ain't gonna argue with Simon & Garfunkel.

...but what brought about the "apathy"? if that's even what you think the reason for choosing not to cast a ballot.

[Robert_S]

I don't get not turning out to vote. There have got to be hundreds of qualified candidates out there who could either win elections or be productive gadflies raising issues that the mainstream candidates won't address. In the US if you get a mere 5% of the vote, you're on the ballot next time around. Look at what Jello Biafra did in SF back in the day.

Also; regardless of whether or not Ian is right, most voters assume apathy on the non participators. If all else fails, why not just run as the guy you would turn out to vote for.

[Deep Sea Isopod]

Those in the armed forces agree to a contract, they train and then they're stationed; losing their lives happens to be a possibility, and when they do, I don't see how they're anymore than a hero than a building contractor who falls from a ladder.

Or a fireman who dies in a burning building, or a cop who is shot dead when trying to catch a mad gunman.

This is, of course, dependent on context; but we're not fighting for liberty, we're not in the East to secure our existence. Soldiers are there because of British policy, and those who die are a consequence of it. This being the case, why do so many portray soldiers as heroes and not victims?

It's not about making heroes out of the dead, but paying respect.
Soldiers don't join up for the context of war. They join up for various other reasons. To get away from home! To learn a trade! To go places! etc.
Now, we all know we should never have gone into Iraq, but how many people joined up just to go kill Iraqi's?
Most will join up having a sense of fighting for defense of his/her country. Like many did during WWI and II. What the government choose to do with them is out of their control.

Every year on November 11 we remember those who died in WWI & II, and in other wars since. Are you saying the remembrance day event shouldn't happen because we are martyring the fallen soldiers?

And your dad in going to Afghastlystan to train the police there. What's wrong with that? He's trying (in vain) to make that shit hole a better place. I say respects to him, and hope he comes back safely.

[Feck]

I don't get not turning out to vote. There have got to be hundreds of qualified candidates out there who could either win elections or be productive gadflies raising issues that the mainstream candidates won't address. In the US if you get a mere 5% of the vote, you're on the ballot next time around. Look at what Jello Biafra did in SF back in the day.

Also; regardless of whether or not Ian is right, most voters assume apathy on the non participators. If all else fails, why not just run as the guy you would turn out to vote for.

I voted last time and sadly ,even though I knew my vote would make no actual difference , I voted for the party that that formed a coalition with the most hated party ,sold out all it's principles lied to us ,and generally should be deported to Elephant island .

I am so proud and happy that I legitimised their rise to power ,It helps me so much to think that I wasn't apathetic and I can almost hold back the tears as they ass-rape me everyday .

[camoguard]

Regardless, it's still a popularity contest and what is popular can be influenced.

It's much more complex than that. What is "popular" is most often influenced by those with the power to influence, i.e. multinationals/those with money.

The cards are stacked against new parties/platforms/focus groups. I very much agree. But the game theory of it suggests that to make the change we have to get involved and sustain an effort or else it is just as good as standing aside in many ways. So, how to do it is agreed upon, right? And I also agree it's not likely to succeed. But it's still what a concerned citizen should do.

We benefit from several lines in the sand that previous citizens banded together for. It's not unheard of.

[sandinista]

I don't get not turning out to vote. There have got to be hundreds of qualified candidates out there who could either win elections or be productive gadflies raising issues that the mainstream candidates won't address. In the US if you get a mere 5% of the vote, you're on the ballot next time around. Look at what Jello Biafra did in SF back in the day.

Also; regardless of whether or not Ian is right, most voters assume apathy on the non participators. If all else fails, why not just run as the guy you would turn out to vote for.

Because you assume most voter assume apathy in non voters also doesn't make it true. The whole, "people who don't vote are lazy/stupid/apathetic etc" is simply the "party line" of those who wish that "elections" weren't the sham they really are.

I don't get not turning out to vote. There have got to be hundreds of qualified candidates out there who could either win elections or be productive gadflies raising issues that the mainstream candidates won't address. In the US if you get a mere 5% of the vote, you're on the ballot next time around. Look at what Jello Biafra did in SF back in the day.

Also; regardless of whether or not Ian is right, most voters assume apathy on the non participators. If all else fails, why not just run as the guy you would turn out to vote for.

I voted last time and sadly ,even though I knew my vote would make no actual difference , I voted for the party that that formed a coalition with the most hated party ,sold out all it's principles lied to us ,and generally should be deported to Elephant island .

Same thing happened to me last time I voted, the "left leaning " NDP party got elected and...oohh big surprise turned out to have the same policies as the "center" party and the "right" party...shocker there.

Regardless, it's still a popularity contest and what is popular can be influenced.

It's much more complex than that. What is "popular" is most often influenced by those with the power to influence, i.e. multinationals/those with money.

The cards are stacked against new parties/platforms/focus groups. I very much agree. But the game theory of it suggests that to make the change we have to get involved and sustain an effort or else it is just as good as standing aside in many ways. So, how to do it is agreed upon, right? And I also agree it's not likely to succeed. But it's still what a concerned citizen should do.

We benefit from several lines in the sand that previous citizens banded together for. It's not unheard of.

There are many many things to do to get involved in politics other than casting a useless ballot once every few years.