Hmm, I guess I just have a hard time buying that.  I'm sure there were plenty of Babylonians who didn't give it much thought, just as there are plenty of people today who don't give the laws they live under much thought.  But I have a hard time accepting the idea that nobody thought about it at all.  You might find physical punishment repugnant, presumably you could still see a system with laws that involve repugnant punishment being different in important ways (perhaps even superior) to one that involved a ruler's whim and repugnant punishment?  Just because a system has flaws (such as physical punishment) doesn't mean no one has reflected on it.  Even recognizing the flaws and not changing the system doesn't mean no reflection has occurred, it may just mean they haven't come up with a system that they consider to be better.  People thinking "well, we could put them in jail for months instead of whipping them, but do we even have enough jail space to do that?  And would it be enough disincentive to work?" is still reflection, even if we don't agree with their conclusions.  Remember, the babylonians were humans, more or less just like us.  They'd had different experience, different ideas of what was possible and not, etc., but they were just as clever, just as human, had the same kinds urges and desires and fears.  When Hamurabi introduced his code, that was a pretty big deal.  A big change from the way things were done before.  I just find it hard to imagine that everyone just shrugged and thought "sure, whatever," without thinking about the implications to them and others, how they would need to change their behaviors, what opportunities or problems it would create for them, how it would affect life in babylon, etc.


I can agree with that, though I don't think the prevalence of that ability has changed all that significantly over the last 40k years, say.  It's not that back then almost no one had that ability, and now almost everyone does.  Its that now most people have that environment, but back then almost no one did.


I can agree with this, but again I don't think it's all that different today.  Its not that everyone today is a Jesus or a Muhammed or Budha or John Locke or whatever.  Deep thinkers are few and far between, whatever age we look at.




Okay, I can agree with that I think (though there may be cases when going "backwards" may be better depending on the exact situation).


Barring intercultural conflict?  Hmm...not sure if I can.  Actually...I'm not sure if I could come up with a case of changing social mode that didn't involve conflict, regardless of direction, but if the key part is that the conflict is inter instead of intra, I think you may have a point.  Just to try, though, how about the english civil war to remove the monarchy, and then after a few years of cromwell the english reinstating a monarchy?  Definitely cultural conflict involved, but was it intra or inter?  Depends on where we draw the boundaries, I suppose.  On a smaller scale, there are almost always smaller groups within any larger civilization that trying to "go back" to "the old ways," such as back-to-the earth groups.  Within organizations such as businesses the structure can change back and forth as new CEOs take over, becoming more authoritarian under one leader, and more organic under another, then back again under a third.  In Athens Solon's constitutional government was replaced by the Tyranny of Pisistratus.  Again, this could be considered cultural conflict, but is it between or within a culture?  The spanish civil war was a coup by facists and monarchists to overthrow a republican government.  Definitely outside groups were involved in the war, but it was arguably fought between members of one culture (Spain's).

Those are the kinds of things I'm thinking of when I say that at any given moment, society as a whole, or any given portion of it may be moving either "forward" or "backward" (however you define them), even if there is a long-term trend in one direction or the other.  It sounds like you may consider the "backward" steps as anomalous because they involve conflicts, but I'm not sure if that's good grounds for discounting them.

I am reviving this thread to discuss a new and related issue raised in the recently closed community chat thread about the election.

If someone who has the opportunity to vote chooses not to, should they be allowed to complain about the officials elected?

Why? Why not?

In reply to Alexei Yaruk-Mundhenk (msg # 49):

Didn't see the thread you mention, but in answer to your question, I'd say "depends on what you mean by 'allowed to complain'".  Are you talking about legally banning them from speaking against whoever is elected, with threat of fines/imprisonment/whatever if they do?  Because if so, then I'd say that's pretty crazy.  If instead you mean just personally telling people to shut up when they complain, that may be sometimes justified (though certainly not always).  Then again, telling people to shut up in private conversation is probably justified in many cases entirely independent of whether or not they voted.  ;)

Also, while going into the polling station and writing "no suitable candidate" on the ballot may provide some emotional benefit, it really doesn't accomplish anything.  If a person really doesn't think any of the candidates are any better than the rest (or any good at all), should it be obligatory for them to vote for one of them?  Being able to say "don't blame me, I voted for the other guy" may make us feel better, but it doesn't actually serve a great purpose beyond that.

Also, keep in mind that complaining can in some cases be more effective and bringing about change than can voting, at least if you're good enough at it to change people's minds.  A complaint that causes 10 other people to go to the polls has more impact than going silently to the polls yourself, though I stress that these shouldn't be seen as an either/or situation.  It's best of all to do both.

Absolutely, and in fact I have always argued that those who choose to vote have then lost their own right to complain, since by voting they have agreed to the process.

Those of us (I include myself in that) who choose not to vote, are the only ones who have not agreed to the completely flawed system, and thus are the only ones who have retained their right to complain.

I'm glad you brought this up because I was disappointed BBR closed the discussion even though it did not violate the ToU.

It's not about being allowed to complain; we're always allowed to complain.  It's about why one would shirk their civic duty and then expect their voice to count when they took no action to make a difference in the election.  It's a simple contradiction, and it makes them look like they are whining instead of taking action.

I don't think Doulos' comments make much sense, to be honest.  If you disagree with the process, so what?  Complain about the process all you want, but don't complain about the people who are elected if you chose not to be involved in electing them.  The "process" and the "substance" are two completely different things.

If I vote for someone and he doesn't live up to his promises, I have every right to complain about him.  If I don't vote for someone who gets elected, I have every right to complain that I didn't want him in the first place.  If I don't vote, I did not take action to make a difference in who got elected, so I really wouldn't feel like my opinion should count for much when I complain later.

There's lots to address here, and generally two two sides never come to an agreement, but I'll lay out the basic premise for my idea.

First, the concept of shirking civic duty.  Right there you've made an assumption that I even have a duty. I don't subscirbe to that. You do, and that's your right, but I don't feel I have any duty to vote.  That's a made up concept.

Second, there are all sorts of other (and in my own opinion, greatly more effective) ways to improve my society.  If it's an issue of getting certain types of legislation through then lobbying is going to be massively more effective in bringing about change in that area.

I have every right to complain about the people who do a poor job, particularly when I made it ery clear through my actions that I knew those people were going to do a poor job.  Children have the right to complain about those in power as well, and they don't even have the ability to vote.  It makes zero sense that ticking a check box, and my right to complain are in any way connected.  My counterpoint to the argument was intentionally absurd, because that's exactly how it sounds coming from voters to me as a non-voter.  Totally absurd.

We have to keep in mind that I as an individual, only have so many hours in my day.

I can spend those hours researching politcal views, waiting in voter lineups etc, or I can spend that doing other things.  Considering my own singular vote has an almost statistically zero % chance of actually doing anything at all, and that even I was the ONE vote the caused things to change that there is no guarantee that the individual will even do wat they say they did, for me personally it actually makes zero logical sense to waste time voting.  The risk that I get hit by a car on the way to the voting booth is actually greater than the chance that my vote will actually matter. (Keep in mind, I am speaking about my one vote as an individual - since that's all I care about).

Alternatively I could (and have - the past two federal elections in Canada) go to the park and pick up garbage with my kids.  We'e chosen to replace the logically pointless act of voting, with someting that we feel will actually bring about real change in our community - garbage cleanup.

So, while the voters can say what they will about civic duty, the loss of the right to complain etc, I feel completely justified that not only do I have the right to complain, but that my actions on voitng day very well could have brought more value to the world than all of the voter actions combined.

Let me also point out that I fully support someone voting if that helps them feel like tey are part of a reater community of people engaging in the same action toether.  From my perspective it's like church.  It does very little to actually change the world for the better (or worse) but if it gives an individual a sense of purpose and belonging in community then fire away.

In reply to Heath (msg # 52):

But what about the case where all candidates running are equally unsuitable in your view?  Say your number one top issue was lowering taxes.  And all the candidates promised to raise taxes.  So you didn't vote for any of them.  The one who does get elected makes good on their promise and raises taxes.  It doesn't seem too unfair in such a case to complain about it, since you didn't really have an option of voting for someone who would have done otherwise.

To Godwin this thing before it gets too far, say you're a Jew living in a province of Germany pre-WWII where the only candidates on the local ballot are nazis.  Is it all that unreasonable for the person to not want to give their vote to any of them?

I mean, we hear people complain about people they voted for doing just what everyone knew they would do all the time.  You might have someone vote for a republican because they wanted lower taxes, say, but then complain that congress isn't doing enough about climate change.  That doesn't seem a whole lot better to me than someone who didn't vote complaining about the same thing.

It's not exactly "made up."  It's just disregarded by those who don't want to believe it exists and want to disregard the laws that say it is real.  I could say the same thing about "murder" or "not driving without a license" or a number of other things.


That's not really the point.  The point is about complaining about what those who HAVE BEEN ELECTED actually do themselves.  If you choose not to vote for or against them, you can't really complain about them.  You are talking about something other than complaining about your elected officials, which is not the point of this discussion.


You also have a right to not vote for them and then ARE ACTUALLY ABLE TO STATE that you take ACTIONS--by voting.  If you don't vote, you are not taking the most basic action.


Exactly.  They have not shirked their civic responsibility, and have not foregone taking action that they could have taken--because they couldn't take it.  So this is a false analogy.  The point here is that someone who could take action but chooses not to should not be complaining about the results.


Well, checking the box means you are taking ACTION to affect the thing which you will then complain (or not complain) about.  If you choose not to take action that you can take, why would you then complain about it?


I disagree. Absurd is refraining from voting when you have a right to vote-- a right people have died to give you--and then doubling down on shirking that right by complaining about those who were elected by those who actually exercised their rights.  In a way, that is actually discriminating against people who believe their right to vote is important, that democracy is important, and that their vote matters.


So did all those men and women who fought and died to give you the right to vote.

This comment makes no sense.  On one hand, you say you don't want to be educated on the issues but still complain.  So what you are arguing here is that people who are ignorant on political issues should be complaining about politics?  That, to me, is the most absurd of the comments.

If you want to remain ignorant and not vote, that is fine (and in fact, those who are ignorant about the issues probably should not be voting), but that is all the more reason you should not be complaining--because in truth, you really don't know what you are complaining about.

This is a nonissue for several reasons:

1) Is someone who truly researches the issues and candidates really going to say that every single one of the politicians and issues they vote on makes it so they should not even show up at the polls?

For example, for judges, you vote "yes" or "no" as to whether they should be confirmed.  There is no alternate candidate, so everyone should feel comfortable voting one way or the other.  Same thing for propositions on the ballet: "yes" or "no."

So if you don't like a certain group of candidates (for governor, for example), then either do a write in candidate or leave that bubble blank.  You don't have to fill in every bubble.  And to just stay home because of one or two races or issues, and therefore ignore your right to vote on all the others, does not make sense to me, and sounds like an excuse.

2) You can do a write in in most cases.  I have done this in the past.

3) You can choose the least objectionable.  Voting for one person is often a compromise.  I do not believe any race has equally objectionable candidates.  There is always one a little better than another.

Not too interested in the back and forth on this.  I've had this conversation with elitist voters far too often and there is never agreement.  But there sure is a lot of judgement from voters.

I support your right to vote and your right to complain Heath.  It's too bad you can't offer the same support of me as I live in a free society, but it is what it is.

In reply to Heath (msg # 57):

What about handing in a ballot of completely unfilled bubbles?  Would that give you the necessary moral high ground need to complain?  Because if so, I have to admit that sounds pretty absurd to me.

While you may feel there's always a least bad option, at some point surely all of them are so bad that even voting for the least bad is an endorsement you just can't in good conscious give, no?  I mean, would you honestly vote for one candidate running on a "kill all the mormons" platform, just because the other one was running on a "kill all the mormons AND torture puppies" platform?

It sort of sounds like this is more of a principle thing than a practical thing for you.  Sort of like "even though I know it won't make a difference, I still need to do it anyway because someone died to give me this chance to not make any difference!"

I have to admit, that while I'm sympathetic to the "vote or don't complain about the result" mentality, I haven't really heard any good justification for it.  On the one hand, I do feel a sort of duty to vote.  On the other, telling someone they should still vote even if they think every candidate is a complete disaster seems wrong too.  I feel like people should do what they think will do the most to make the world a better place.  And some cases, complaining is more effective than just voting for whomever the system tells you you're allowed to vote for.

I am only arguing that I have the right to complain (if I don't vote), but not that there is much value in doing so.

Voting is a very important people to some people.  So is how they bake their Christmas turkey to other people.  Also, what the opening night lineups are for their hockey team.

What do people think of the idea that ones vote must be earned by a good candidate, rather than being guaranteed to the least-bad candidate?  Sort of a "you want my vote?  Then convince me to give it to you.  The fact that the other candidate is horrible isn't enough."

Many people complain about negative advertising in campaigns these days.  But negative ads mostly work because the system assumes you only need to be least-bad in order to win.  If its assumed my vote will go to someone, it's just as (or more!) effective for a candidate to spout lies about their opponent as it is to tell me what they're actually going to do.  Take away that assumption, and they'd have to actually tell me something good about themselves, rather than just something bad about their opponent.  And that sort of seems like it could be a good thing.

It would be a good thing I suppose, but voting between two near-perfect candidates is the same as voting on two near-pure evil candidates.  My vote has an almost zero % chance of actually making a difference, and picking garbage has 100% chance of making a difference, so there is no contest there in my books.

However, with two superb candidates you at least have less to complain about potentially!

Tycho, I don't support your idea at all.

Why? Because choosing the less-bad candidate is another word for compromise. Sure, it's not what I WANTED, but it's what I'll live with. Alright, I'm not getting the tyrannical computer overlord I want, but at least I'm getting this guy with a strong science background. Meanwhile, Bob isn't getting his communist dictator, but this other guy who really supports socialized welfare.

The more disparate our demographics and beliefs are, the more we have to be willing to settle in order to find middle ground. And one of the downsides of the US being so diverse is the fact that it is very, very disparate.

In reply to katisara (msg # 63):

But what if your act of not voting is sending the intended message that you don't consent to being ruled/governed/whatever by any of the candidates?  Consider the example I used earlier about a Jew having to pick between two Nazi candidates.  At some point isn't it actually worse to give the implicit support to someone simply because you thought the alternative was slightly worse?

To be clear, I'm not arguing against voting here.  I do vote, and I encourage others to vote.  I'm just think a case can be made that in some situations, when all available candidates are so bad that you don't want to give support to any of them, that not voting isn't just a lack of action, but rather a legitimate expression of disapproval.  Whether it's any more or less effective at making things better can be debated, of course.

I'm also sort of skeptical of hollow acts of pure symbolism.  If you can know with very good confidence that your vote will have no impact, what is the real justification for casting it?  I had a friend who said his dad would every election write "no suitable candidates" on the ballot and put it in the box.  On the one hand that seems like a sort of satisfying act of voicing your displeasure.  On the other, I'm not really sure it accomplishes any more than just not voting (other than wasting a bit of peoples time).

Finally, there's an aspect of non-voting that I can sort of understand, in that people often feel they're not actually given a choice on the issues that they actually care about.  A metaphor might be that you get to vote on whether to turn the volume up or down, but you don't get to vote on changing the channel. Say one candidate is saying "bomb Iran" and the other is saying "bomb Syria", and you're actually opposed to bombing either, what is the right thing to do?  If you feel the option you want isn't on the table, the fact that you get to choose some details of how you're not going to get your way might not seem worth the effort.

There is always more than one issue. Even if both candidates endorse something I'm opposed to (like, for example, war) there has to be at least some difference between them that I approve of in one and disapprove of in the other.

This assumes that the candidate you vote for will even do what they say they will, which isn't the case.

Or that the vote you cast will actually result in the candidate you want being voted in, which is never the case (except in ultra-rare cases, and never on a federal level).

Who cares what they believe (or say they believe) when the very act of voting is merely a feel good action and does not actually stand a chance of actually accomplishing anything.

Well, is it more likely that a Candidate who says they're going to do something won't, than a Candidate saying that they won't do something, but does, or are both equally likely?

I have no idea.

If I am a politician and you consistently do not vote, why do I care about you whatsoever? You're not contributing to my winning, nor to my losing. You have made yourself both irrelevant and silent.

At least if you write-in Mickey Mouse, I see something on the results saying "this person is a voter, and specifically did not vote for me". And if the laws require a certain majority, you have directly worked against my winning.

Now of course, if your choice is between one candidate who wants to kill ALL of the people, and another one who wants to kill only HALF of the people, you can't in good faith vote for either, and even voting via write-in is an implicit support of the system. But so is paying taxes. If your politicians are so bad that you have a moral rejection to participating in the politics at all, but you're still participating in every other way (especially the ways that are convenient to you/keep you out of jail) consider the possibility that you're not a peaceful protestor, you're just lazy.




If you are the only person doing that, yeah, you're just the crazy guy on the street corner. And that's the case of whoever you're voting for. You may be voting for Ronald Reagen in a race against Stalin, but if you're the only guy who votes for Reagan, you're still just the crazy guy on the street corner.

Democracy by its nature requires *large* groups of people to accomplish anything. If 50% of the people write in candidates, that's a huge group of people, and it'll have an impact.

There's also the issue that people seem to think they voted, and that's their whole civic duty for four years. But that's not the case. You have to follow up. Agitate. Contact your representatives. Put your money with your mouth is. If you just sit back and say 'meh, it is what it is. Don't blame me, *I* didn't take any action to possibly alter the outcome in any way', you're not exactly being a good citizen.

This is another reason why I don't vote.  Politicians are acting in the best interest of what will get them elected, and not what will help their constituents.

I can have a voice as an individual.  As a person.  Not as a voter.



A key difference is I could get put in prison for failing to pay taxes, while all I get for choosing to not vote is a moral tsk tsk'ing from those who do.



That's why I framed this in the beginning that I am speaking about myself personally, and not of the group as a whole.  From a personal standpoint my vote, particularly in a federal/provincial/state election, will never make a difference.  It simply won't.  It's a total waste of time from a 'make a real difference' standpoint.

Now, when 10,000 people don't vote, then things change, but that doesn't negate the fact that my own personal vote will never make a difference.



This is actually one of the parts I find most hilarious about the voting thing.  Most of the people I know who vote do exactly what you said - they use voting as the pinnacle of civic duty and treat those who don't as somehow less valuable to society - even if that act of voting is the only so called 'civic duty' thing they did all year.

I volunteer, I do city cleanup, etc - but because I don't partake in voting that suddenly gives voters the right to say things like 'You don't have the right to comlain', or 'What are you doing to change things?'

The reality is in most cases I'm doing way more to bring about change in the world because I didn't waste time reading newspaper articles about Joe Bob's views on abortion and lining up at voting booths, but actually making the world a better place by engaging my community and being a part of it.

I would even go so far as to say sitting in your house and playing video games could be more beneficial to society than voting.  If it helps with your mental state, and allows to find an outlet for stress, than at least you're accomplishing something, whereas the act of voting can, at best, give you the feeling of accomplishing something - a sort of social placebo activity.

What do you think 10,000 people not-voting is going to accomplish exactly? Since we regularly have elections with 30% voter turn-out, it seems like this plan is pretty much tested and ineffective.

I'm not suggesting it will or won't accomplish anything in particular.  I'm not concerned with that.  I've always been concerned only with my 1 vote.

EDIT: I see the confusion with my language earlier when I said 'then things change'.  I just mean the outcome of an election could be swayed if 10,000 people don't vote.  Depending of course on what those 10,000 people may have voted.
This message was last edited by the player at 17:22, Fri 07 Nov 2014.