That is untrue. In the United States our ballots are littered with third party candidates - Green Party, Natural Law, Taxpayer Party, Patriot Party, Libertarian Party, Independents and other third parties. They win a fair amount of the time in State and Local Elections. We have a socialist designated as an Independent, Bernie Sanders, who has been serving as a representative in the US House of Representatives for decades. For President, yes, it's typically Republican or Democrat, and the two main parties in Congress are also Republican or Democrat - however, in the US a lot of power is still disbursed among the States and the local governments.Pappa wrote:At various times in the past I've refrained from voting because I don't feel there is a candidate worthy of my vote, with policies I identify with. I sometimes vote tactically by voting for the one I dislike least, but then sometimes I find them all equally worthless. If I was in the US, I'd only have two options, Republican or Democrat.Ian wrote:The notion of protesting an imperfect democracy by boycotting it is pathetic.
I look a it this way - no one person's vote is worth very much, but it's worth the same as everyone else's in the voting district. So, you might as well vote.
Plus, voting should not be looked at as a vehicle to getting one's way. That's a childish view of the subject, and results in a lot of what we hear about the futility of voting: "it doesn't matter if I vote anyway, so why should I?" Or, "It's not going to change anything." Or, "My candidate has no chance, so why bother?" People who adopt those positions are failing to see that your vote isn't supposed to "matter," your vote isn't supposed to change anything, and your vote is not supposed to be "the" deciding vote that gets a candidate elected. Voting was never for that, and voting will never be that. If that's what you want, you'll have to figure a way to become dictator, because a dictator is the only person who can unequivocally say that his vote matters, his vote will change something, or his vote decides who gets elected.
We have voting in a republic as a civic duty of the citizenry. A way for the citizenry to participate en masse and make their COLLECTIVE voice heard to the powers that be, and it is a way to make the leadership in some way accountable for their actions. Voting, however, cannot be helpful unless the people are educated about who and what they are voting for. That's the defect. All the regulations about money and corporate influence is just so much window dressing. The reality is that we have people who don't vote largely because they don't know what the fuck they're voting for or who the candidates are.
Here in the US, there is much hand-wringing about why less than 50% of Americans vote. The answer is simple, though. It's just not politically correct to say. The answer is - people are fucking stupid and uneducated. in 2009, a mere few months after the election41% of the American public could not name who the Vice President was. Most Americans don't follow politics AT ALL. 60% of Americans did not know that Tim Geitner was the Treasury Secretary. 57% did not even know the name Bernanke. More Americans said they believe in the devil (59 percent) and angels (71 percent), than believe in Darwin's theory of evolution (47 percent).
We need to worry less about trying to figure out ways to disallow spending on political campaigns, and more on making the citizenry smart enough to warrant them voting. As it stands, I'm glad only 40% of the electorate votes. I think if the rest voted they'd fill in the ballot randomly, or they'd vote for the name that sounds most familiar.
