Thursday, July 08, 2004
Divided We Can, As Well
Ok, let's address your points in order.
1) Attack the argument, Patrick, not the man. It has nothing to do with arrogance, and I never said the right was worthless. The right itself is important, and if they tried to take it away, then it would be a whole different story, and I would consider fighting to the death to keep it.
But to attribute that to arrogance is totally off the mark. In a way it is humility that makes me realize the actual process of voting is useless- one person's vote does not make a difference. And like you admitted before- one vote does not make much of a difference, so voting 'for a change' filters this already small measure of power through several people, decreasing its power even more. So taxes are too high? Vote for it, vote against it, taxes are still going to be high.
2) While some people may not understand the civil rights movement and might not understand social change movements, I make this decision through a totally different viewpoint. I believe Martin Luther King Jr. to be a great man, perhaps one of the greatest of all time. If I thought I had it in me to be a proponent of social change, I would do it. But what does this have to do with voting? Did Dr. King vote? Does it matter at all? His devotion to the cause is irrelevant to the voting process. All the memorable things he did (public sit-ins, protests, speeches) were to sway public opinion and get civil rights to the top of the issues. Very important stuff. And did one man make a difference? Maybe, maybe not. The thing about humans is that there are 6 billion of us. Great men and women are all over the place. Some of them are harder to find than others.
Let's get this straight. Politicians realize that they also have to sway public opinion and so they do similar things. Obviously voting as a process is important, or they wouldn't spend 180 million dollars a year on campaign ads. But social change does not come about through voting. It comes about through lobbying, campaigning, and grassroots movements, such as civil rights and war protesting. I'm sure plenty of war protesters in the 60's didn't vote, but the act of protesting is more important that the act of voting. Obviously, the protesting has to be backed up to some degree by a vote. But it always will be. I am not advocating a 0% vote turnout. But that would never happen, because as vote turnout dropped, voting as a measure of power would increase.
3) I agree. If 538 democrats had decided to vote, then perhaps we would have Gore in office. But you know what? If we are going to get down to specific details, then I can point out the fact that we live in an electoral system, and that Gore should have won based on majority vote. I can also point out the fact that the two states I possibly could have voted in both were overwhelmingly partisan, and will continue to be overwhelmingly partisan in the upcoming election as well. To say that George Bush won because some people didn't vote may very well be true. But it would be even more true to say that he won because some people in Miami didn't vote. In fact, the closer we look at the election, the more we realize that this is true: "Stuart's vote (or lack thereof) had absolutely no effect on the 2000 election."
And yet, even if I had lived in Miami-Dade county in 2000, my voting still wouldn't have made a difference. If I had voted for Gore (which I might have) or the Libertarian candidate (which I might also have done), I simply would have just been another vote on the losing side. If I had 538 minions following me around doing what I did, perhaps I could have singlehandedly changed the face of history. But I don't, so I didn't.
The counter-argument here is that because many people think like me, they are going to have record low voter turnout. I don't have a problem with that. Like I said, as voter turnout decreases, voting power increases. And as I said before, I don't influence what other people do as much as I like to think. So, you ask, what if by writing this post I convince 60 Republicans and 20 Democrats to not vote? Or vice versa? If I actually have an impact on what other people think, then why does it have to be divide around party politics? Voter turnout being low SHOULD not mean that the Democrats lose automatically. And if it does, then the Democrats are doing something wrong. The whole point of the partisan government is that they are supposed to roughly represent half of the country. I may vote in this election (simply to see how voting works, I have never done it) but I won't pretend that I have somehow participated in the system by taking 25 minutes out of my entire year to select some candidates who I really don't know in depth.
Voting as a process, as an institution, is important. But voting as a personal choice and as personal empowerment is useless. If you enjoy voting, then by all means, do it. If you think your vote makes a difference... then you sure are right. It makes very little difference.
1) Attack the argument, Patrick, not the man. It has nothing to do with arrogance, and I never said the right was worthless. The right itself is important, and if they tried to take it away, then it would be a whole different story, and I would consider fighting to the death to keep it.
But to attribute that to arrogance is totally off the mark. In a way it is humility that makes me realize the actual process of voting is useless- one person's vote does not make a difference. And like you admitted before- one vote does not make much of a difference, so voting 'for a change' filters this already small measure of power through several people, decreasing its power even more. So taxes are too high? Vote for it, vote against it, taxes are still going to be high.
2) While some people may not understand the civil rights movement and might not understand social change movements, I make this decision through a totally different viewpoint. I believe Martin Luther King Jr. to be a great man, perhaps one of the greatest of all time. If I thought I had it in me to be a proponent of social change, I would do it. But what does this have to do with voting? Did Dr. King vote? Does it matter at all? His devotion to the cause is irrelevant to the voting process. All the memorable things he did (public sit-ins, protests, speeches) were to sway public opinion and get civil rights to the top of the issues. Very important stuff. And did one man make a difference? Maybe, maybe not. The thing about humans is that there are 6 billion of us. Great men and women are all over the place. Some of them are harder to find than others.
Let's get this straight. Politicians realize that they also have to sway public opinion and so they do similar things. Obviously voting as a process is important, or they wouldn't spend 180 million dollars a year on campaign ads. But social change does not come about through voting. It comes about through lobbying, campaigning, and grassroots movements, such as civil rights and war protesting. I'm sure plenty of war protesters in the 60's didn't vote, but the act of protesting is more important that the act of voting. Obviously, the protesting has to be backed up to some degree by a vote. But it always will be. I am not advocating a 0% vote turnout. But that would never happen, because as vote turnout dropped, voting as a measure of power would increase.
3) I agree. If 538 democrats had decided to vote, then perhaps we would have Gore in office. But you know what? If we are going to get down to specific details, then I can point out the fact that we live in an electoral system, and that Gore should have won based on majority vote. I can also point out the fact that the two states I possibly could have voted in both were overwhelmingly partisan, and will continue to be overwhelmingly partisan in the upcoming election as well. To say that George Bush won because some people didn't vote may very well be true. But it would be even more true to say that he won because some people in Miami didn't vote. In fact, the closer we look at the election, the more we realize that this is true: "Stuart's vote (or lack thereof) had absolutely no effect on the 2000 election."
And yet, even if I had lived in Miami-Dade county in 2000, my voting still wouldn't have made a difference. If I had voted for Gore (which I might have) or the Libertarian candidate (which I might also have done), I simply would have just been another vote on the losing side. If I had 538 minions following me around doing what I did, perhaps I could have singlehandedly changed the face of history. But I don't, so I didn't.
The counter-argument here is that because many people think like me, they are going to have record low voter turnout. I don't have a problem with that. Like I said, as voter turnout decreases, voting power increases. And as I said before, I don't influence what other people do as much as I like to think. So, you ask, what if by writing this post I convince 60 Republicans and 20 Democrats to not vote? Or vice versa? If I actually have an impact on what other people think, then why does it have to be divide around party politics? Voter turnout being low SHOULD not mean that the Democrats lose automatically. And if it does, then the Democrats are doing something wrong. The whole point of the partisan government is that they are supposed to roughly represent half of the country. I may vote in this election (simply to see how voting works, I have never done it) but I won't pretend that I have somehow participated in the system by taking 25 minutes out of my entire year to select some candidates who I really don't know in depth.
Voting as a process, as an institution, is important. But voting as a personal choice and as personal empowerment is useless. If you enjoy voting, then by all means, do it. If you think your vote makes a difference... then you sure are right. It makes very little difference.
# posted by Stuart @ 10:47 PM 
