John Cleese's Declaration of Revocation

coyote blue · Post by **coyote blue** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:12 am

Can't bitch about results if you don't vote. Yet, if what you voted against won, you can bitch about that. I am neutral when it comes to voting, do it or not, not my worries. From my experiance when it comes to voting is that so far nothing good has happened for me. I have the Teamsters for our union at work, and each year the contract is up for vote. Each year our "good" goes away, and turns to bad. We used to have, in an 8 hour day, 2 20 minute breaks, 2 10 minute breaks and a lunch anywhere between 35 mins to 2 1/2 hours. Last contract voted, we had both 20 minute breaks taken away, and our lunch now a mandatory 35 minutes. Now tell me, who would vote to remove that? And we had gained nothing. As well as our top pay went down $5. Seriously, when it comes to voting one must be wise and learn before making a choice. If you don't know what is up, by voting you might inavertantly be voting for something not-so-good for yourself/community.
And I think I'll shut up now.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:42 am

[quote="coyote blue";p="639732"]Now tell me, who would vote to remove that? And we had gained nothing.[/quote]
Except maybe your job... Take a note: you can't continue to get something for nothing. If you suck dry the hand that feeds you, what are you going to do when it dies?

Bigity · Post by **Bigity** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:44 am

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="639728"]Such ridiculous absolutism ...

(and I'd disagree that "not voting" is "doing nothing", and even start an argument that's it's functionally impossible for a sentient being to do "nothing" via the fact that abstaining from action is, in and of itself, an action ... but that part is neither here nor there.)[/quote]

If you wanted to argue that, I'd point to the 1500 pound people that can't walk, much less wipe thier own ass after they shit themselves. People can and do 'do nothing', very much so.

coyote blue · Post by **coyote blue** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:50 am

[quote="Deacon";p="639752"]
Except maybe your job... Take a note: you can't continue to get something for nothing. If you suck dry the hand that feeds you, what are you going to do when it dies?[/quote]

See, the job can't vote and decide. The ones who pay the monthly dues and is in the union can vote. No others. So whoever voted in the union are the ones who decided. Right to work state, union basically running the show on a lot of things. Gannett owns my company and they do what they can to save money, but even they can't vote nor change anything without a proper vote.

Binks · Post by **Binks** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:50 am

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="639688"]Voting is, at best, neutral. There's nothing inherently and always good about it. If you're given to vote between being eaten by sharks or eaten by snakes, there is nothing inherently "good" about the ability to vote (which is only good when there are significantly different choices to vote on, which is a mostly subjective quality), or the act of "voting" in and of itself (which can't be anything but neutral, in and of itself).[/quote]

Uhh...your example seems to me to be an example of how the ability to vote is inherantly good, rather than proof that it's neutral. If you're deathly (no pun intended) afraid of snakes would you rather have someone choose whether you die by snakes or sharks or get to choose yourself? I don't know about you, but I'd rather be given the choice to vote for the lesser of any two evils rather than just have someone else pick for me...

Bigity · Post by **Bigity** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:52 am

[quote="coyote blue";p="639756"][quote="Deacon";p="639752"]
Except maybe your job... Take a note: you can't continue to get something for nothing. If you suck dry the hand that feeds you, what are you going to do when it dies?[/quote]

See, the job can't vote and decide. The ones who pay the monthly dues and is in the union can vote. No others. So whoever voted in the union are the ones who decided. Right to work state, union basically running the show on a lot of things. Gannett owns my company and they do what they can to save money, but even they can't vote nor change anything without a proper vote.[/quote]

Unions. Good when they started, totally useless (and usually even harmful) to workers today.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 4:11 am

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="639580"]Actually, who cares what you care for? Doesn't change the truth, or mean that people who vote are smart (the two aren't linked) or don't vote are stupid (the two, also, aren't linked) ... people in general are stupid, but for all of our supposed learnings and access to 'education' Americans relatively lead the pack.[/quote]
That's pretty presumptuous. And while you cannot say that "voting = smart" you can say that "not voting = dumb".

Herr Doktor! · Post by **Herr Doktor!** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:07 am

I'd actually agree with Bigity and (ugh...) Deacon here. Not voting is pretty stupid, as it is some sort denying that you yourself are a democratic agent (which, somewhat twisting Gewerth's principle, is a bit of a no-no in organized society). If anything, they should include a "Re-open nominations" option while voting, so people can have an effective channel for protest. However not voting is pretty much equivalent to not having the right to complain afterwards.

thief90k · Post by **thief90k** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:55 am

[quote="adciv";p="639648"][quote="thief90k";p="637603"]I'm 16. Why do I care about your government. The point is that one power hungry selfish man has the power to lead the most powerful country in the world to war against anybody.[/quote]

And, with the exception of the words "most powerful", how is this different from 90% of the other countries in the world?[/quote]

I never said it was any different.

And it is impossible for anything to "do nothing". Because everything (that we know of) is "being in the universe" which is doing something.

Spongiform · Post by **Spongiform** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:32 pm

Arguably voting in itself doesn't really do much either. I assume we're talking about voting in the US? We have the electoral college system which means that the candidate who gets the most total votes in the state wins all the electoral votes for the state. They are not proportional to the real breakdown of real votes.

For that reason, if you live in a heavily Democratic- or Republican-leaning state, whether you vote for the dominant party or the other one, you're just throwing your vote into the ocean in which the 75% of voters in the dominant party will win anyway.

One vote, one hundred votes, one thousand votes for the Republican won't really do much in Massachusetts.

Metzgirl · Post by **Metzgirl** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 1:43 pm

... didn't the 2000 elections show you people anything? The entire country was off by what, 500 votes? The whole Debacle in Florida came from the fact that a few votes here or there would decide the whole race.

Granted, there are some states where the majority is so great that you throwing your one little off-party vote in the mix won't do much good. In the case of 3rd parties, though, if they can achieve 15% of the votes, they can be recognized by the national voting commision (or whatever the official name is) so that even if most of your state doesn't vote for that party, if enough people from other states vote for it, you're helping them in long run.

Most of the people on the forums here are smart and educated about the issues enough that I would like to mandate ya'll to vote.
[/voting rant]

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 1:53 pm

Thank you, Metzgirl, for reminding us of how slim a margin it can be.

[quote="Spongiform";p="639880"]For that reason, if you live in a heavily Democratic- or Republican-leaning state, whether you vote for the dominant party or the other one, you're just throwing your vote into the ocean in which the 75% of voters in the dominant party will win anyway.[/quote]
That's a self-defeating, self-fulfilling prophecy, Spongi, and that kind of short-sighted stupidity makes me want to just beat people umercifully. Humans suck.

dmpotter · Post by **dmpotter** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 2:32 pm

[quote="Spongiform";p="639880"]One vote, one hundred votes, one thousand votes for the Republican won't really do much in Massachusetts.[/quote]
Governer Romney (likely to run for President in 2008) will be surprised to hear that.

Spongiform · Post by **Spongiform** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:46 pm

[quote="Metzgirl";p="639889"]... didn't the 2000 elections show you people anything? The entire country was off by what, 500 votes? The whole Debacle in Florida came from the fact that a few votes here or there would decide the whole race.

Granted, there are some states where the majority is so great that you throwing your one little off-party vote in the mix won't do much good. In the case of 3rd parties, though, if they can achieve 15% of the votes, they can be recognized by the national voting commision (or whatever the official name is) so that even if most of your state doesn't vote for that party, if enough people from other states vote for it, you're helping them in long run.

Most of the people on the forums here are smart and educated about the issues enough that I would like to mandate ya'll to vote.
[/voting rant][/quote]

It's true, the swing states are very important, and can change the results significantly with just a few votes, but it doesn't mean that one doesn't feel like he's throwing his vote away in Texas or Vermont.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:50 pm

The governor of Texas for 5 years before Dubya was a Democrat. The south used to be predominately Democrat. Party affiliation is not in and of itself enough to spell defeat, especially in a state where much of the voting population has a vested interest in living off the income of the rest of the population.

Real Life Forums

John Cleese's Declaration of Revocation

Who is online