Poor me. Everything sucks, and I can’t make any change. But I’m not trying. Waaaaaaaaa.
So your (other) excuse for not voting is that you’re not fully informed on every issue?
I’m not sure I said everything sucks. I just said I had the right to do so if I choose, even though I don’t vote. Just like you have the right to dislike it if I do. I don’t understand the resentment, but I appreciate your right to have it and express it.
As to not being informed, if I don’t feel informed enough to make a decision, why should I vote?
Surely you don’t need to be familiar with all of the issues to have an opinion which of the two major party candidates would be better for the presidency? Somewhere between the debates, interviews speeches, commentary, discussion and advertising you’ve developed an opinion as to the relative qualifications?
Because to me, more than any other year, the choice is obvious. One person is clearly qualified and the other is clearly not.
This year, for the presidency, yes, I see a clear choice. But that is rarely the case for me with most issues on the ballot.
I guarantee you when they looked into the moon shot, the government commissioned some very expensive studies and asked a lot of people with scientific qualifications if such a thing was possible and how do do it. And those people said it could be done, because rockets were already a thing. So was the technology for people to survive in areas unsuitable for human habitation. And lots of other component elements either existed or were known to be existable if enough money and resources were made available.
It wasn’t a case of inventing stuff from whole cloth (although there was some of that); it was accepted by moat that it was possible - it was just going to be really, really difficult. And expensive.
Let me give you an example of something that’s just not possible now and probably won’t be in any of our lifetimes. In my liquor cabinet I have a bottle of Bombay Sapphire gin (because of course I do). It is not possible to un-distill that gin and turn it back into its component elements (ie, actual plants). I don’t need to have done some crazy Rusty Venture-type SuperScience! shit or anything to tell you it’s not feasible. And you know it too. There’s just too many missing elements in our collective scientific knowledge to make that happen.
Actual scientists have told me the thing with science is most of it is tiny, incremental discoveries building on the careful work of their predecessors. The quantum leap of a massive discovery (the scientific equivalent of This One Weird Trick Which Changes Everything, if you will) is very rare and is reported as big news when it does happen for obvious reasons.
Obviously “You can’t win so don’t try” isn’t a wise or laudable philosophy, but all this quasi-New Age “Never underestimate the power of dreams!” also needs to be tempered with a solid dose of realism too.
I’m a veteran, served during Desert Storm. Me and the country are square. And I’ll vote or not as I damn well please. Same as anyone else.
So am I, bub. Doesn’t mean my obligation to my country disappeared when I was discharged.
And without some of those tiny little steps, everything discovered in the future falls apart. Not helping your case here.
Never underestimate the power of dreams combined with persuasion and a shitload of hard work by a shitload of people. I don’t miss the point; but I know “oh shit, I can’t do anything about it, game over” isn’t ever going to get it done.
People just assume subconsciously that nothing can ever change, but the fact is it will, and greatly. You can either try to channel it or complain about how everything went to shit. One strategy is clearly more effective than the other.
The thing is, I think you’re missing my point. The moon shot was not considered impossible by people when it was decided to go ahead with it.
I gather you’ve served as a soldier? I’ve worked extensively as a journalist. I speak from experience when I say one person frequently cannot make a difference, and depending on the circumstances may also be wasting their time trying.
Even lots of people working together can’t always make a difference. Take the Panama Papers leak. All these journos (For the record, I was not one of them or involved in it in any way) worked really, really hard to uncover definitive evidence of corruption and rich people hiding their money in offshore accounts, and the near-universal reaction was “Yeah? So? Everyone knows that happens.”
Sure, the Prime Minister of Iceland or somewhere like that lost his job, but ultimately the revelations didn’t make a difference to most people.
So when considering an endeavour or something that needs to change, throwing one’s hands up and saying “can’t be done” isn’t the right approach, but IMHO it shouldn’t be discarded as an approach - especially if the available evidence points to that approach actually being the case.
Besides, you asked for an example of something that’s impossible and I gave you one: Turning a bottle of gin back into its original ingredients (right down to reconstructing the leaves and berries etc). It’s patently, obviously not possible now and isn’t likely to be possible for so far into the future (if ever) that I’m comfortable calling it “impossible” and potentially having to accepting a spot in some 25th century Big Book Of People In The Past Being Wrong About Things for my efforts if it turns out someone finds a way to do that in the interim.
Also doesn’t mean you get to define other people’s obligations. I can American differently that you do. So can anyone. That’s the way it’s supposed to work.
If everyone abstained from voting, our political system would implode and hopefully be replaced by something better.
Sounds like an ideal outcome to me.
I might or might not end up voting this year, but I certainly think the more principled and moral thing to do would be to abstain, and I really couldn’t care less if Trump or Hillary gets elected. Both of them would be a moral disaster.
Which is why I would have been a good Athenian citizen (democracy in the classic sense and the basis for all democracies) and you, if you followed that choice, would not even be a citizen.
Ah yes, the anarchist view. Principled and moral? Now that’s some twisted shit.
Navy, actually.
OK, prove conclusively that political systems are monolithic and cannot be changed.
It’s staggeringly rare for them to change without a revolution, civil war, actual war, or popular uprising.
I’m not an expert on US political history by any stretch of the imagination, but as far as I can tell, the only US president who wasn’t part of one of the two major political parties at whatever time was Washington. So with nearly 220 years with effectively a two-party system tell, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for most people to think the system can’t be changed short of something drastic.
If ever there was a time for a serious third candidate, you’d think it would be now - yet it just seems two be the two candidates from both major US political parties, from what I can tell.
Besides, we’ve already established there are things which are, in fact, impossible and therefore a waste of time to even try, which means I’ve proven my initial point, regardless of the political angle which is being raised now.
**Martini **there has been plenty of change in various democracies, including the US. It’s just subtle. It tends to happen over a period of time. It tends to be gradual. It tends to evolve to match changing times and changing mores.
When you say it’s staggeringly rare for a political system to change without revolution etc, you are missing a word, and that word is “massively” after “change”. In other words big sudden change probably only occurs by big sudden events like revolution. But that doesn’t alter the fact that the political system in the US has incrementally become other than that which it was.
People tend to feel like they can’t change anything and it is barely worth voting because they feel like their tiny amount of power makes no difference. But that is actually precisely what one should expect in a working democracy. No one person’s view has much weight, and nor should it. That doesn’t mean that as generations change and views evolve your puny little vote - combined with that of likeminded others - won’t slowly shift the centre of gravity (or more realistically centres of gravity) of politics in particular directions.
Really, there are lots and lots of people who are not politically engaged. They don’t care and they hate that they have to listen to all of it 24/7/365. If that is you, then don’t vote, you won’t be alone.
But, IMHO, it sounds like you do actually care. And that you do have an opinion. But, that you don’t feel there is a way to voice that opinion in the current structure by voting. I often feel the same way. If we had an option of “None of the above”, then I think we would see a much MUCH greater turnout of voters.
The other thing is, we all get very focused on the Presidential election, because that dominates the media. However, there are many other offices and proposals being decided. In those cases, local voting makes a much bigger difference. I would encourage you to seek an avenue to engagement through these voting decisions. As others have noted, maybe your Congress person will win in a walk, but if you want to vote against them then do it! Eventually enough people will and they might just get booted out.
This discussion is all about the political angle. So you can’t reverse entropy (now). What does that have to do with change in a political system?
To Icarus’ point, if one cares that much and wants more of a voice, they should get involved in politics, whether at the grassroots support level or by actually running, within or without the system. Though, of course, the most effective way would be within it.