To vote or not to vote, it should be a question!
In the past, I have always voted for the Marxist Leninist Party (or some variation thereof). It has been my form of silent protest against a form of government that I don't support. Not a specific government, ie Liberal or Conservative, but the whole structure of how we choose and operate our government. That is not to say I think the Marxist Leninist Party would do any better. For me, it has always been about voting for what in principle or theory is more in line with my ideals without the consequences of how it will be practiced. I know they won't be elected and given the chance to screw it up.
But the irony is that I'm still falling into line. Still playing the democracy game. Even protest and disobedience fall into and get absorbed by the democratic electoral structure. I would assume because that is the structure on which it is based. Revolution. Give the people what they want. So, would the true, or at least truer protest be to not vote?
Why do I have a problem with the electoral democracy (as it exists currently in Canada)?
Long rant. I might follow up with more details over the next few weeks, but I will start with just a general overview of some of my biggest issues.
Democracy has evolved partially out of one major principle: "That all men are created equal." Sounds good in theory and has certainly had significant and important effects on shaping society. So everyone gets a vote and everyone gets an equal vote. But... I'm afraid I have to disagree. Should we not account for "quality versus quantity", and if so, how? Should everyone get an equal vote? In any debate or decision, aren't some people's opinions worth more than others? Perhaps there just isn't enough emphasis on the /created/ part. We all start off being worth the same as everyone else and can move up or down from there. Putting value to different people, obviously has risks and disadvantages. There's huge potential for corruption and instability, especially any that create more of "them" than of "us". There are obviously examples of corrupt governing systems based on assigning value to its people. But assigning no or equal value to everyone isn't much better. Actually, I believe it is worse. The obstacle I see in the valuation system is determining what is valued. Once that is figured out, it has huge potential. I don't see how to fix a system based on no or equal (essentially the same as no) value.
The whole thing is just so messed up. I'm sure I'm missing a lot of the details and nuances but let's go to the French Revolution. The intelligentsia realize that the aristocracy is corrupt, that ruling by divine right, by some constructed sense of entitlement is wrong and inefficient. It only benefits those at the top at the extreme cost to everyone else. This needs to change. Problem. They don't have the power to affect that change. They need support to overthrow the aristocracy. Rally the plebs! Problem. Now they have created a system where numbers, the masses, are more important than anything else. Just being now gives you a sense of entitlement. You share it with a lot more people than did the aristocracy, but meh! And we are left with a system that is corrupt and inefficient. It benefits almost no one by trying to please everyone.
Do you really want to continue supporting a system that was created with noble and grand intentions but in the end had to settle for keeping the plebeians happy so they would stop chopping off heads? "The fussy plebs!" Well, if you are a pleb you probably do. Probably also if you're about to get your head chopped off. "There's the rub!" They win by majority rules. By default, the system will always support the masses.
There are a lot of arguments I've heard as to why I should vote. I wouldn't mind picking some apart but for now, I'll just go with this one: "We owe it to those who came before us, who fought for our right to vote."
I disagree. I do not believe that they fought for our right to vote. "They" (dangerous concept) fought for our right to break free from an antiquated, corrupted, ineffective form of governance. If you absolutely feel the need to base your actions on some sense of obligation to our forefathers (that's another argument), than continue to fight to ensure our governing system is as effective and honest as possible. Don't just blindly do what they did then, do what needs to be done now to respect why they did what they did then.
Tricky part. What's the alternative?
Sarahworld is one option. I promise to be a benevolent dictator. Really.
I think that those who recognize the futility of the game, can't help but want to (A) pull themselves out of the game, or (B) redefine, improve, or reinvent the rules of the game. A is much easier than B. But A doesn't accomplish anything. It is as futile as continuing to play the futile game, it just saves you a bit of time. But B doesn't guarantee results either. Unless you succeed in bringing about a positive change, it just makes you feel like your doing something.
I'm working on B but in the short run, I might have to settle for A.
The choice whether or not to vote may be as important as the choice of who to vote or not vote for. What is actually important, in my opinion, is that you think about it and act or don't act accordingly.
The above rant is just that, a rant. A bit silly. A bit tongue-in-cheek. A bit messy. But I do believe it is a serious issue, one that will require a lot of thought before and after election day.
But the irony is that I'm still falling into line. Still playing the democracy game. Even protest and disobedience fall into and get absorbed by the democratic electoral structure. I would assume because that is the structure on which it is based. Revolution. Give the people what they want. So, would the true, or at least truer protest be to not vote?
Why do I have a problem with the electoral democracy (as it exists currently in Canada)?
Long rant. I might follow up with more details over the next few weeks, but I will start with just a general overview of some of my biggest issues.
Democracy has evolved partially out of one major principle: "That all men are created equal." Sounds good in theory and has certainly had significant and important effects on shaping society. So everyone gets a vote and everyone gets an equal vote. But... I'm afraid I have to disagree. Should we not account for "quality versus quantity", and if so, how? Should everyone get an equal vote? In any debate or decision, aren't some people's opinions worth more than others? Perhaps there just isn't enough emphasis on the /created/ part. We all start off being worth the same as everyone else and can move up or down from there. Putting value to different people, obviously has risks and disadvantages. There's huge potential for corruption and instability, especially any that create more of "them" than of "us". There are obviously examples of corrupt governing systems based on assigning value to its people. But assigning no or equal value to everyone isn't much better. Actually, I believe it is worse. The obstacle I see in the valuation system is determining what is valued. Once that is figured out, it has huge potential. I don't see how to fix a system based on no or equal (essentially the same as no) value.
The whole thing is just so messed up. I'm sure I'm missing a lot of the details and nuances but let's go to the French Revolution. The intelligentsia realize that the aristocracy is corrupt, that ruling by divine right, by some constructed sense of entitlement is wrong and inefficient. It only benefits those at the top at the extreme cost to everyone else. This needs to change. Problem. They don't have the power to affect that change. They need support to overthrow the aristocracy. Rally the plebs! Problem. Now they have created a system where numbers, the masses, are more important than anything else. Just being now gives you a sense of entitlement. You share it with a lot more people than did the aristocracy, but meh! And we are left with a system that is corrupt and inefficient. It benefits almost no one by trying to please everyone.
Do you really want to continue supporting a system that was created with noble and grand intentions but in the end had to settle for keeping the plebeians happy so they would stop chopping off heads? "The fussy plebs!" Well, if you are a pleb you probably do. Probably also if you're about to get your head chopped off. "There's the rub!" They win by majority rules. By default, the system will always support the masses.
There are a lot of arguments I've heard as to why I should vote. I wouldn't mind picking some apart but for now, I'll just go with this one: "We owe it to those who came before us, who fought for our right to vote."
I disagree. I do not believe that they fought for our right to vote. "They" (dangerous concept) fought for our right to break free from an antiquated, corrupted, ineffective form of governance. If you absolutely feel the need to base your actions on some sense of obligation to our forefathers (that's another argument), than continue to fight to ensure our governing system is as effective and honest as possible. Don't just blindly do what they did then, do what needs to be done now to respect why they did what they did then.
Tricky part. What's the alternative?
Sarahworld is one option. I promise to be a benevolent dictator. Really.
I think that those who recognize the futility of the game, can't help but want to (A) pull themselves out of the game, or (B) redefine, improve, or reinvent the rules of the game. A is much easier than B. But A doesn't accomplish anything. It is as futile as continuing to play the futile game, it just saves you a bit of time. But B doesn't guarantee results either. Unless you succeed in bringing about a positive change, it just makes you feel like your doing something.
I'm working on B but in the short run, I might have to settle for A.
The choice whether or not to vote may be as important as the choice of who to vote or not vote for. What is actually important, in my opinion, is that you think about it and act or don't act accordingly.
The above rant is just that, a rant. A bit silly. A bit tongue-in-cheek. A bit messy. But I do believe it is a serious issue, one that will require a lot of thought before and after election day.
