A lot of you might know about this already:

http://www.simpol.org/

I signed up to it a few weeks ago. Not totally convinced it'll work mind but I suppose it's worth a shot.

Have a read if you've not already I'd like to know what people think about it.

Redline wrote:Yes, please don't vote. Your car pollutes the air when you drive, and makes the ice melt. Not voting is a good idea. Thanks for not voting.

I'm guessing it might be best if this guy doesn't vote...

BClark, you is a great big crazy.

You are trying to use Utilitarian principles to analyse the opportunity/cost of driving a car versus voting. This might work in the absract, but can't really be applied to a world where there are more than these two things. At least in such a world there would be a pertinent relationship between the two acts, and perhaps they would even be mutually exclusive: you could only perform one or the other.

The principles of Utilitarianism can only be applied to mutually exclusive acts: voting vs not voting or driving a car vs not driving a car. What is the critieria by which you are cross-referencing the values of driving and voting? You could equally compare voting and eating eggs, or voting and dancing a jig, if such logical fancy and willy nilly appeals to you. Perhaps you think you can account for all the conesquences of each individual act of driving and voting; if you can, you have a far more complex and far-reaching understanding of the synthetic relations between things than I do. Just how are you arriving at a taxonomy of the value of such disparate acts?

If you say that one of the costs of voting is driving a car, and the negative consequences of driving outweigh the positive gains of voting, this assumes that voting necessarily involves driving a car. What if you just walk to the voting booth? There's no pertinent relationship between the two acts! Your logic is decidedly fuzzy, I'm afraid. If you wish to provide us with an argument as to why we should not vote, you're gonna have to illustrate why certain necessary consequences of voting are negative, and how these outweigh its positive consequences. Otherwise you're justifying the kind of argument that says: "I should not vote because if I go the pub instead I might meet the partner of my dreams". Which is clearly bonkers.

This is why what you give is an O'Reilly argument.

simmo wrote:BClark, you is a great big crazy.

You are trying to use Utilitarian principles to analyse the opportunity/cost of driving a car versus voting. This might work in the absract, but can't really be applied to a world where there are more than these two things. At least in such a world there would be a pertinent relationship between the two acts, and perhaps they would even be mutually exclusive: you could only perform one or the other.

The principles of Utilitarianism can only be applied to mutually exclusive acts: voting vs not voting or driving a car vs not driving a car. What is the critieria by which you are cross-referencing the values of driving and voting? You could equally compare voting and eating eggs, or voting and dancing a jig, if such logical fancy and willy nilly appeals to you. Perhaps you think you can account for all the conesquences of each individual act of driving and voting; if you can, you have a far more complex and far-reaching understanding of the synthetic relations between things than I do. Just how are you arriving at a taxonomy of the value of such disparate acts?

If you say that one of the costs of voting is driving a car, and the negative consequences of driving outweigh the positive gains of voting, this assumes that voting necessarily involves driving a car. What if you just walk to the voting booth? There's no pertinent relationship between the two acts! Your logic is decidedly fuzzy, I'm afraid. If you wish to provide us with an argument as to why we should not vote, you're gonna have to illustrate why certain necessary consequences of voting are negative, and how these outweigh its positive consequences. Otherwise you're justifying the kind of argument that says: "I should not vote because if I go the pub instead I might meet the partner of my dreams". Which is clearly bonkers.

This is why what you give is an O'Reilly argument.

you bring up "utilitarianism" because everyone has decided to extensively focus on this car thing that i brought up. the car thing was an example and this doesnt necessarly have anything to do with cars... go walk to the voting booth, whatever, you can probably find a way to vote without doing any harm to the world. i never denied that. i brought it up as a "cost-benefit analysis" with regard to the hypothetical circumstance of someone who does drive to vote. needless to say, this is not always the case with voters. again, it is totally feasible to vote without harming the world in the process. so if thats your thing, go ahead.

but how is your day-to-day life? does it tend to include volatile acts like driving? being really loud? consuming anything thats not too environmentally friendly? littering? being rude to others? taking advantage of others? do you really claim to lead a totally non-volatile lifestyle? because unless you do, you have no business throwing ethical criticisms at me for not... voting. i think its silly when people who create tons of volatility in the world every day (through driving among MANY other things) seem to think they are doing a lot of good by voting. for all practical purposes, i consider voting to have a very trivial effect in america, especially when viewed relative to the types of coercive activities that most americans engage in. so walk to the booth, whatever, voting may not carry ANY cost in and of itself. but what you are doing to help the world by voting is rather trivial, and you could do the world far more good by paying attention to how you live your life in your day-to-day affairs and cutting back on whatever volatility you are inducing in the world.

EXAMPLE: p diddy's "vote or die" campaign. this is a guy who brings guns into nightclubs. volatility? i think so. and yet he thinks he gets an ethical 1-up for... voting? youve got to be kidding me.

BClark wrote:
...

EXAMPLE: p diddy's "vote or die" campaign. this is a guy who brings guns into nightclubs. volatility? i think so. and yet he thinks he gets an ethical 1-up for... voting? youve got to be kidding me.

I'm sorry but you do realise you just used P Diddy as an example... Please stop for a second, think... now do you realise the silliness?

Clarky boy, you're clutching at straws made of ice. The principles of representative democracy are based on voting. If you don't like the system, fine, you're right it's a shit system. but -and this is the clincher against your argument-: The only way to change the system, barring violent revolution- is for the politicians to make laws to change things. These politicians get into power via a voting system. If you don't vote, they don't give a fuck about you, simple. The only thing you can do to make a difference in the world by staying out of the voting system is to work to influence other people's votes. If you're not voting, but working to influence other people votes... well you may as well vote.

The two party system only functions as a two-party system because enough people think like you, i.e. "If I vote for someone else it's a wasted vote.", well tell that to the good people of Vermont who vote for Bernie Sanders.

Just a suggestion to back up this BC fella who seems to be being ganged up on.

If you vote you legitimise the system. It allows even a tyrant a level of legitimacy even amongst those who did not vote for them because they can argue that they were picked in a fair system of majority rule.
This is largely nonsense even when someone hasn't literally stolen the election but let's say practically nobody voted.
All the candidates are in the pockets of corporations/banks etc have a barely concealed contempt for the electorate so almost everyone says 'fuck it, i'm not being involved in this'
Now, one thing that could happen as a result is they'll get on as if nothing has changed. Another thing that could happen is they won't be able to rule. If only 10 or 20 per cent or less actually involved themselves in the system, let alone voted for a particular person, then their legitimacy would be seriously hampered and they might have to change what and how they do things.
It would cause a crisis but might actually lead to something better and more considerate of folks afterward.
I doubt it but it might.
Therefore a person choosing not to vote isn't a fool or just lazy or ecologically concerned about driving they see the system as inherantly corrupt and want nothing to do with legitimising it via involvement.

BClark wrote:but how is your day-to-day life?

Like a veil of tears.

BClark wrote:

simmo wrote:BClark, you is a great big crazy.

You are trying to use Utilitarian principles to analyse the opportunity/cost of driving a car versus voting [...]

This is why what you give is an O'Reilly argument.

but how is your day-to-day life? does it tend to include volatile acts like driving? being really loud? consuming anything thats not too environmentally friendly? littering? being rude to others? taking advantage of others? do you really claim to lead a totally non-volatile lifestyle?

My day-to-day life is ok I guess, thanks. Although I do not understand what these "volatile acts" of which you speak are. I don't litter or drive, but I do all the other things.I don't see what that has to do with anything, especially voting. I just can't figure out how its relevant to your argument.

BClark wrote:because unless you do, you have no business throwing ethical criticisms at me for not... voting.

I wasn't throwing ethical criticisms at you for not voting - I was just analysing the logic of your argument. I never said voting was an ethical issue - I sais it was an issue of logical pragmatism. I wasn't saying you should vote, just that your reasons for not voting don't make any sense.

And again, this volatility of which you speak? What is it and why is it bad? What is the solution to it? I don't get it.

simmo wrote:

My day-to-day life is ok I guess, thanks. Although I do not understand what these "volatile acts" of which you speak are. I don't litter or drive, but I do all the other things.I don't see what that has to do with anything, especially voting. I just can't figure out how its relevant to your argument.

I wasn't throwing ethical criticisms at you for not voting - I was just analysing the logic of your argument. I never said voting was an ethical issue - I sais it was an issue of logical pragmatism. I wasn't saying you should vote, just that your reasons for not voting don't make any sense.

And again, this volatility of which you speak? What is it and why is it bad? What is the solution to it? I don't get it.

i am operating under the assumption that political turmoil is a form of destructive volatility in the world, and that your vote is meant to counteract it and hopefully stabilize things. that is why i am seeing this in terms of volatility. if my assumption is incorrect (in other words, if a vote has nothing to do with stabilizing the turbulence of the world), then we shouldnt be having this conversation because voting would CLEARLY have no point.

you mention that "I do all the other things".... you are rude to others, take advantage of others, and are generally a loud person? then buddy, you stir up the world a great deal (hence the volatility, which i have clearly explained and im annoyed at having to do so again), and a little vote does not do much to correct it. simple as that. the solution is to not meddle in such volatility.

Gramsci wrote:
I'm sorry but you do realise you just used P Diddy as an example... Please stop for a second, think... now do you realise the silliness?

p diddy is indeed a silly person and is a prime example of the silliness behind the "vote or die" mentality.

Gramsci wrote:
Clarky boy, you're clutching at straws made of ice. The principles of representative democracy are based on voting. If you don't like the system, fine, you're right it's a shit system. but -and this is the clincher against your argument-: The only way to change the system, barring violent revolution- is for the politicians to make laws to change things. These politicians get into power via a voting system. If you don't vote, they don't give a fuck about you, simple. The only thing you can do to make a difference in the world by staying out of the voting system is to work to influence other people's votes. If you're not voting, but working to influence other people votes... well you may as well vote.

The two party system only functions as a two-party system because enough people think like you, i.e. "If I vote for someone else it's a wasted vote.", well tell that to the good people of Vermont who vote for Bernie Sanders.

gramsci boy, its sounds like you simply cannot accept your lack of power over these things. ive accepted it and im somewhat at peace with it. no pointless indignation on my end, hence no futile sense of duty.

its worth noting that you all seem to be pushing a sense of duty on me. and yet, all these evil politicians (which this is supposed to be all about) act out of a very similar sense of duty and coercive mentality.

now, i said this a while back, but this time im sticking to it: i seem to be wasting my time. go ahead and vote. rah rah. im done here.

BClark wrote:
you mention that "I do all the other things".... you are rude to others, take advantage of others, and are generally a loud person? then buddy, you stir up the world a great deal (hence the volatility, which i have clearly explained and im annoyed at having to do so again), and a little vote does not do much to correct it. simple as that. the solution is to not meddle in such volatility.

To be fair ,dude, I thought it would be fairly clear that I meant I have done these things and suppose I will do them again. They are not things that I seek to do, but it would be ridiculous of me to say that I have never been rude to someone, taken advantage of someone or been overly loud.

I think I understand your point, or at least I have interpreted it to be something like this: you have a lot of qualms about how people behave, and you don't feel that voting will change that. You'd rather concentrate on your personal conduct than social policy. I don't see why there can't be a relaitonship between these things -for example, voting for a new government that brings in new legislation can affect the way people behave. But as you are done here, I will pursue this point no further.