Or you're legitimizing a mostly fixed game.
You want your voice to matter? You want there to be power of the people? Voting is the last thing that you'd want to do. You're better off rioting.
-
Snag some vintage SPL team logo merch over at our Teespring store before January 12th!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
On voting and civil disobedience
- Thread starter sunny004
- Start date
Or you're legitimizing a mostly fixed game.
You want your voice to matter? You want there to be power of the people? Voting is the last thing that you'd want to do. You're better off rioting.
Are you comparing an individual voting to riots? If so, then a one person riot is just as useless as one person's vote.
Rioting would be terrible regardless. Unless you meant protesting? Civil disobedience can be effective without violence. In fact, it's probably the best way... A call to riot sounds like the "overthrow the bourgeoisie violently" fantasy, in honesty.
Political organization among those who feel disenfranchised would help, too. A great many youth voters simply do not care to vote, let alone anything more. It's a self-defeating cycle.
Do you think that rioting in the past hasn't at times had the same effects as civil disobedience or protest? Or are you under the fantasy that it's inherently wrong because "breaking the law" is inherently wrong?
One person voting for a fixed number of options orchestrated by those in power won't do anything. One person rioting could attract more rioters.
Mind you, when I say "Don't vote, riot", it's the same as saying you should organize, protest, and practice civil disobedience. The point is that major change only ever came from large numbers of people being pissed off and vocal about it, not from voting. It's the threat of the overthrow fantasy that keeps representatives actually doing their jobs in a system that is built to keep them from doing it.
Huh? Civil disobedience most often involves breaking laws. You know, the only place for a just man in a state that imprisons unjustly being behind bars and all that. My favorite transcendentalist work is Thoreau's "Resistance to Civil Government," better known as "Civil Disobedience." He was quite clear on ignoring and protesting unjust laws. There is a reason peaceful civil disobedience movements ended up with people in jail!
But rioting is not an answer. It's an appeal to the primal portions of humanity and society. I wouldn't be surprised if a "one person riot" has the same affects as an election determined by one vote. Because, you know, a violent goon is stopped before anything more happens.
Not to mention a violent overthrow is an anarchist fantasy. There is no way the United States could be overthrown by armed citizens. At best you could cause complete destruction of local municipalities, but there's no way any moderate-sized town or city could be overtaken by citizens for any period of time. It's absurd to humor that thought.
Isn't an election determined by one vote an election where one vote supposedly matters? I think you're mixing your metaphors. But that would just still be working within a fixed number of options. A one person riot might not involve breaking windows. It might involve a demagogue getting others to break windows. See: how riots start. "Attaca! Attaca!"
You said voting is legitimizing a mostly fixed game. You presented an alternative, rioting. I consider an individual starting a riot and a single vote equally pointless when considered.
And riots require a tension and some reasonably sized group of people. It's not something a single person can orchestrate.
Anyway, I think I've pushed this off even some tangentially-related offshoot of the OP, so I'll cease in advance.
Last edited:
Von didn't present an alternative, he compared a single person voting to a single person rioting. Between the two, I would be fairly convinced rioting would be more effective. e.g.: A Donald Trump protester got an interview on CNN for attempting to attack Donald Trump. That's as close to a single person "taking part in a violent public disturbance" (google definition) as I think you could get.
There, I think we're back on topic.
There, I think we're back on topic.
Not voting is the worst mentality you can have. You may as well eat the bread and enjoy the circuses if rioting is something you would consider.
By not voting and especially voicing your 'not vote'-ness by telling others it's 'fixed' leads to many more people not voting because they see it as worthless. How could their single vote matter? It's a domino effect, you can choose not to vote but keep that to yourself.
By not voting and especially voicing your 'not vote'-ness by telling others it's 'fixed' leads to many more people not voting because they see it as worthless. How could their single vote matter? It's a domino effect, you can choose not to vote but keep that to yourself.
Last edited:
I do not understand this metaphor at all. But I do eat bread, yes.
Good. I said it for a reason. Why are you so convinced that picking between a limited number of choices is good for you or the nation? Because rappers told you so?
Women's suffrage and the black vote didn't happen because people voted. They happened because people demonstrated. And sometimes they rioted. Hell, the current black lives movement isn't an issue a single person voted over, but it matters. Not a single common person voted to stop SOPA. But it got stopped. Now how did that happen? The list of things, especially with internet organization, to recently happen because of the real power of the people is endless.
The most effective one-person rioting would honestly be propaganda by the deed / political assassination in the vein of Princip, Czolgosz, etc. In that sense, one person rioting could make a huge impact in this election. For as much hate as Trump spews, a tidal wave of it comes crashing back at him. If he makes it to the general election, I honestly wouldn't be that surprised to see someone permanently remove him from the ballots.
We can also take this moment to thank the founding fathers for the electoral college. Most voters are misinformed or generally uninformed when casting their votes, and majority rules in straight democracy. Even though it's essentially political suicide, those electors you're voting for can still opt to vote for someone else or not at all. Think of that chick in '00 who wouldn't vote for Gore (in one of the tightest elections ever, to boot) or whoever the fuck in Minnesota accidentally voted for John Edwards instead of John Kerry in '04, lol. Pretty sure the "Never Trump" campaign is more a call to electors than the public at this point, as major Republican officials are taking a hard look at their usual constituents and finally feeling the loss of faith in the system that most of us have enjoyed for a long time.
And no, there's nothing wrong with not partaking in a dysfunctional and bloated routine just so you can at best feel like your vote for one side of the same coin really made a difference and at worst feel the guilt of supporting a truly terrible option. Considering I've yet to see a candidate that's not terrible, I'd rather not spend any more of my free time than necessary with anything related to the US government.
We can also take this moment to thank the founding fathers for the electoral college. Most voters are misinformed or generally uninformed when casting their votes, and majority rules in straight democracy. Even though it's essentially political suicide, those electors you're voting for can still opt to vote for someone else or not at all. Think of that chick in '00 who wouldn't vote for Gore (in one of the tightest elections ever, to boot) or whoever the fuck in Minnesota accidentally voted for John Edwards instead of John Kerry in '04, lol. Pretty sure the "Never Trump" campaign is more a call to electors than the public at this point, as major Republican officials are taking a hard look at their usual constituents and finally feeling the loss of faith in the system that most of us have enjoyed for a long time.
And no, there's nothing wrong with not partaking in a dysfunctional and bloated routine just so you can at best feel like your vote for one side of the same coin really made a difference and at worst feel the guilt of supporting a truly terrible option. Considering I've yet to see a candidate that's not terrible, I'd rather not spend any more of my free time than necessary with anything related to the US government.
I'd much rather see President Trump than the electoral college reversing the outcome of an election. It would be one thing if the republicans prevent him from getting the nomination with some rule changes, but we'd be looking at some pretty terrible backlash if the general election becomes a transparent scam.
I don't listen to rap music so you projecting doesn't make sense, also no, you can vote for anyone not a limited amount of people, you can even vote Mickey Mouse in if you please. It's democracy.
Internet advocacy is as strong as money is weak. SOPA was never stopped since it still goes under many names. I don't see how women's suffrage and black people being able to vote is even relevant since women didn't riot and I am pretty sure black people didn't riot either for the 15th amendment. The people's powers are limited, sometimes a coup d'état can't even save a broken nation. Riots in the past has proved to be just violence. Rioting is going for liberation but ends up as mindless. Here's a Wikipedia article of a famous riot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Detroit_riot
I am not sure if you're talking about advocacy or rioting.
Yea they only went to war.
There wasn't a war by name between people of colour and white people in America but people of color did peacefully protest their treatment in the country and got dealt with pretty harshly for it. The American Civil War was between 1861-1865, the 15th amendment was signed in 1870, but the Jim Crow laws stopped being enforced in 1965.
The Jim Crow laws became discontinued due to the protestors in the civil rights movement.
Last edited:
Given the fact that he instigating violence at this point, and if he continues to do so as President, I think that might be a distinct possibility. His hateful retoric is going to create a lot of animosity.
That's part of being a republic. The representatives you elect won't always follow through with what they say they will prior to assuming duties. You can only hope that they'll make the best informed decisions they can. It wouldn't be irrational for an elector to see Trump as a man that's too dangerous to vote for, regardless of party loyalty and some sense of integrity to follow what's most popular. The electoral college exists precisely for this sort of event.
I think riots in the streets would be the best possible outcome if the electoral college overruled the democratic choice.
Aside from being wrong on all points as pointed out by other users (except that no brought up how the Detroit Riot brought about a change in minority hiring and unfair housing laws, and that it was largely viewed as a bad thing by pro-segregationists, though I won't deny that it was particularly damaging, but that's a result of you cherry-picking literally the most damaging riot ever for your argument), you have not answered my question at all. Why is it important to vote? You haven't said a single thing about why it's actually important. Give me the exact rhetoric you've been fed.
Well, I think people should at least vote for their House of Rep and Senators. Those local and state elections don't have electoral college, so your vote very much matters there. Consider the fact that only 20-10% of voters actually vote for those positions and your single vote becomes that much more important. Congress makes and passes laws, so odds are, if you want certain laws to be passed, you should vote for Congress, so that you have someone who aligns with your views.
So, while its true that politics in this country is very broken, I still feel like the idea that people should not be involved in it at all to be not a very good solution. If you don't want to vote, then it's your choice and I will respect it. It's a good thing we are not forced to do so either way.
So, while its true that politics in this country is very broken, I still feel like the idea that people should not be involved in it at all to be not a very good solution. If you don't want to vote, then it's your choice and I will respect it. It's a good thing we are not forced to do so either way.
Who is changing the thread title. How can 'should people vote' be answered with anything but 'yes.'
Also can someone direct me to the other Trump thread? All I see are inactive Bernie and general election threads.
Also can someone direct me to the other Trump thread? All I see are inactive Bernie and general election threads.
Each of these threads has veered into "general election", and this was always the worst, what with being started with a rather out of context op. It was worth locking at this point if it hadn't gotten way off-topic.
If you want to rename it something better that's not a firebot level joke, go ahead.
If you want to rename it something better that's not a firebot level joke, go ahead.
If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it
-Sam Clemens
It is imperative that governments adhere to corporate interests and not the interest of the average person, these corporate sponsored dictatorships are all over the world. It up to you whether you vote or not, just try to maintain low expectations because America's debt is through the roof and I don't seeing it coming down anytime soon.
-Sam Clemens
It is imperative that governments adhere to corporate interests and not the interest of the average person, these corporate sponsored dictatorships are all over the world. It up to you whether you vote or not, just try to maintain low expectations because America's debt is through the roof and I don't seeing it coming down anytime soon.