I just caught a message in a friend's IM profile telling people (me) to go out and vote Nov 2nd. I am not. I'd like to share why, and am wondering why others are voting or choosing not to this coming election.
I turned 18 during the 2000 election and was able to participate in the election for my home state when I was in college via an absentee ballot. As I sat down to fill it out, one thing was clear to me: I really had no idea what I was picking or why for choices except the presidential race. Of which, I only had a vague idea of who I liked more.
And that's really the problem that I see, the choice doesn't present itself with a clear result or consequence. It's like sitting down and reading the menu at an italian returaunt, not being able to read the untranslated names, I just pick a pasta, and hope I get one that doesn't give me fits of anguish upon consuming it.
I think the root of this problem is that most people like to live and think and operate in a world they craft for themselves based on ideals, not realities. This is most likely because reality is overwhelming and often harsh, to the objective observer. Ideals are useful, they generalize, inspire, and motivate an individual to maintain themselves. But they do not offer any insight as to the consequences, or realities they bear fruit of.
The presumption of democracy is that each citizen in the government has the power to change the government for the better. The supposed tool for this is voting. But a vote only has power when you know what you are voting for. And in our voting for president, we vote for a GUY. This guy or that guy? That one's my guy! This absurdity we call a government is no more endeared to making sound decisions than picking your favorite football team to beat the spread on sunday!
Scary.
It's amazing, but I guess it's just human nature to make decisions based on emotion rather than sound judgement, and the politicians know this; the whole game of politics is about playing on people's fears and hopes, not about practical problems and practical solutions. The most important thing to a government official is not solving problems and improving the nation; it's maintaining the perception that progress is being made. This is accomplished with generalized speeches that hammer talking points, and conventions which are adult pep-rallies. This is how the ones in power screw over the ones who lack such power, because no one is willing to get their hands dirty and actually fix a problem.
And all the while, we are given the only real choice between six of one, and half a dozen of the other. No real meaningful, progressive, and important change comes when one party or the other takes house. And whatever changes that do come, draw benefit from one place and place it in another, only for a limited time. The two party system depends on their might and blind following to refuse any real choice, so the only man who analyzes, identifies real problems, and offers solutions, (Nader) is bullied out by the sheep, so that he is in truth, no choice at all.
Until the people rise up and demand more control over their government, with strict accountability, nothing will get done. No problems will be solved. Oh money will be spent, LOTS of it; and the best part it that it's YOURS. Things will appear to get done, and give blind, ignorant people soemthing to point to. Sheep will just bleat and bicker until the end of time drowning out the voice of change. Fixing this is possible, but we probably won't see it in this lifetime. People, which means the lowest common denominator of a voting group, must realize the difference between ideals and realities for us to move forward. And politicians should have to present designs for reform, and implementation plans, like an engineer, and the people must hold them accountable, and have the capability of doing so.
I will end by refuting the most common, and blindly idealistic statment people will throw at me when I tell them I refuse to vote: "voting is important." In the ideal sense, I agree with this 100%. Voting is important. But it is only important, in reality, if you know what you are voting for. If i'm on the island in Survivor, I will vote, because I know that my vote will result in a meaningful outcome, wether or not it wins. I will not vote this presidential election, because the choice to me is like if I want to be shot in the front, or the back of the head. Either way it doesn't really matter, and it's not a worthwhile choice. Because when the election is over, and 4 years from now, no one will be able to reconcile the reasons they voted and the results in any real, concrete sense, either positively or negatively. But people are good rationalizers, and they will point to general, unproven notions to justify voting yet again.
At least when you pick which NFL team is going to win by what, you can see it in action how they either win, or lose.
I turned 18 during the 2000 election and was able to participate in the election for my home state when I was in college via an absentee ballot. As I sat down to fill it out, one thing was clear to me: I really had no idea what I was picking or why for choices except the presidential race. Of which, I only had a vague idea of who I liked more.
And that's really the problem that I see, the choice doesn't present itself with a clear result or consequence. It's like sitting down and reading the menu at an italian returaunt, not being able to read the untranslated names, I just pick a pasta, and hope I get one that doesn't give me fits of anguish upon consuming it.
I think the root of this problem is that most people like to live and think and operate in a world they craft for themselves based on ideals, not realities. This is most likely because reality is overwhelming and often harsh, to the objective observer. Ideals are useful, they generalize, inspire, and motivate an individual to maintain themselves. But they do not offer any insight as to the consequences, or realities they bear fruit of.
The presumption of democracy is that each citizen in the government has the power to change the government for the better. The supposed tool for this is voting. But a vote only has power when you know what you are voting for. And in our voting for president, we vote for a GUY. This guy or that guy? That one's my guy! This absurdity we call a government is no more endeared to making sound decisions than picking your favorite football team to beat the spread on sunday!
Scary.
It's amazing, but I guess it's just human nature to make decisions based on emotion rather than sound judgement, and the politicians know this; the whole game of politics is about playing on people's fears and hopes, not about practical problems and practical solutions. The most important thing to a government official is not solving problems and improving the nation; it's maintaining the perception that progress is being made. This is accomplished with generalized speeches that hammer talking points, and conventions which are adult pep-rallies. This is how the ones in power screw over the ones who lack such power, because no one is willing to get their hands dirty and actually fix a problem.
And all the while, we are given the only real choice between six of one, and half a dozen of the other. No real meaningful, progressive, and important change comes when one party or the other takes house. And whatever changes that do come, draw benefit from one place and place it in another, only for a limited time. The two party system depends on their might and blind following to refuse any real choice, so the only man who analyzes, identifies real problems, and offers solutions, (Nader) is bullied out by the sheep, so that he is in truth, no choice at all.
Until the people rise up and demand more control over their government, with strict accountability, nothing will get done. No problems will be solved. Oh money will be spent, LOTS of it; and the best part it that it's YOURS. Things will appear to get done, and give blind, ignorant people soemthing to point to. Sheep will just bleat and bicker until the end of time drowning out the voice of change. Fixing this is possible, but we probably won't see it in this lifetime. People, which means the lowest common denominator of a voting group, must realize the difference between ideals and realities for us to move forward. And politicians should have to present designs for reform, and implementation plans, like an engineer, and the people must hold them accountable, and have the capability of doing so.
I will end by refuting the most common, and blindly idealistic statment people will throw at me when I tell them I refuse to vote: "voting is important." In the ideal sense, I agree with this 100%. Voting is important. But it is only important, in reality, if you know what you are voting for. If i'm on the island in Survivor, I will vote, because I know that my vote will result in a meaningful outcome, wether or not it wins. I will not vote this presidential election, because the choice to me is like if I want to be shot in the front, or the back of the head. Either way it doesn't really matter, and it's not a worthwhile choice. Because when the election is over, and 4 years from now, no one will be able to reconcile the reasons they voted and the results in any real, concrete sense, either positively or negatively. But people are good rationalizers, and they will point to general, unproven notions to justify voting yet again.
At least when you pick which NFL team is going to win by what, you can see it in action how they either win, or lose.
Facebook
Twitter