Without regulation, money begets money and monopolies will form.

If the American voter base doesn't pull its shit together and revive democracy, we're going to have a bad century. Yesterday I met a man who doesn't vote and I wanted to go ape-shit on him. "My vote doesn't matter". Vote for mayor. Vote for city council. Vote for our House members. Vote for State Senate. Vote for our two Senators.

"Voting doesn't matter, capitalism is doomed anyway" is a self-fulling prophecy and a fed psy-op from the right. I'm so fucking sick of that attitude from my allies.

▲

lanyard-textile 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Jovially -- you simultaneously believe that they're a victim of a psy-op *and* that their attitude is self formed?

;) And you wanted to go ape shit on him... For falling for a psy-op?

My friend, morale is very very low. There is no vigor to fight for a better tomorrow in many people's hearts. Many are occupied with the problems of today. It doesn't take a psy-op to reach this level of hopelessness.

Be sick of it all you want, it doesn't change their minds. Perhaps you will find something more persuasive.

▲

llmslave2 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is a common sentiment but it doesn't make any sense. Voting for the wrong politician is worse than not voting at all, so why is it seen as some moral necessity for everyone to vote? If someone doesn't have enough political knowledge to vote correctly, perhaps they shouldn't vote.

▲

maeln 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Someone, I can't remember who, explained it better than me, but the gist of it is by not voting, you are effectively checking yourself out of politician consideration.

If we see politician as just a machine who's only job is to get elected, they have to get as many votes as possible. Pandering to the individual is unrealistic, so you usually target groups of people who share some common interest. As your aim is to get as many votes as possible, you will want to target the “bigger” (in amount of potential vote) groups. Then it is a game of trying to get the bigger groups which don't have conflicting interest. While this is theory and a simplification of reality, all decent political party do absolutely look at statistics and survey to for a strategy for the election.

If you are part of a group that, even though might be big in population, doesn't vote, politician have no reason to try to pander to you. As a concrete example, in a lot of “western” country right now, a lot of politician elected are almost completely ignoring the youth. Why ? Because in those same country the youth is the age group which vote the less.

So by not voting, you are making absolutely sure that your interest won't be defended. You can argue that once elected, you have no guarantee that the politician will actually defend your interest, or even do the opposite (as an example, soybean farmer and trump in the U.S). But then you won't be satisfied and possibly not vote for the same guy / party next election (which is what a lot of swing voters do).

But yeah, in an ideal world, everyone would vote, see through communication tactics and actually study the party, program and the candidate they vote for, before voting.

	▲	llmslave2 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I won't dispute there can be utility in voting, I just disagree with the moralizing. In fact I think what you said about the older demographics being pandered to by politicians is a great point. Their voting patterns are probably having a net negative impact on society and really they should vote less. But they don't, and so politicians pander to them.

▲

Capricorn2481 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't have a stake in forcing people to vote or not, because I generally agree that uninformed people shouldn't be pressured to make a last minute decision if they don't want to. I think everyone knows elections are at their least honest days before the vote.

But to engage with your question, not voting is the same as voting. You are forgoing your voice and giving more weight to the people that do vote. It's limited to your district, yes, but whatever the outcome, you gave the majority power to do that. So it's not surprising that people get frustrated when non-voters see themselves as "outside" of politics, especially when they complain about the state of things.

	▲	llmslave2 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not so sure not voting is the same as voting (if you meant the opposite my apologies). Imagine the train switch scenario but it's an unknown amount of people on both tracks, do you pull the lever? If you don't, do you still assume culpability for the outcome? I don't think there is a simple or easy answer to that. Also a lot of people who chose not to vote have become disillusioned by the common narrative around political action, the democratic process, and even the concept of political authority. It's extremely grating to be berated (not saying you, other people) about not voting when they still believe the things their middle school teachers taught them about politics and tend to be the least politically knowledgeable out of everybody.

▲

layer8 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The thing is that while voting matters collectively, it’s insignificant individually: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting

Nonvoters aren’t being irrational.

▲

voidfunc 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Some of us dont vote because we just dont really think the outcomes matter.

As long as there is still a way to make money then nothing else really matters as money is the only thing that can buy you a semblance of happiness and freedom. Enough money and you can move to whatever country you want if things get bad enough too in the US.

▲

irjustin 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Just so we're clear the current voter base says this is exactly how it should be.

▲

sph 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Just so we're double clear, the other voter base says this is exactly how it should be, using with different words.

All the ills of modern (American) politics stem by the blaming one side for the problems caused by both.

▲

i80and 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Just so we're clear, the voter base of over a year ago asked for this because they were actively lied to, and were foolish enough to believe said lies.

Current polling however says the current voter base is quite unhappy with how this is

▲

nemomarx 14 hours ago | parent [-]

People spend a lot more effort and money lying to the voter base during election years than during the rest of the time.

	▲	kubb 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		And the money required to change the voter’s minds is peanuts. You don’t need to make them happy, just scared of the opposition.

▲

Yizahi 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It is very likely that his vote for the parliament literally and legally doesn't matter, depending on the party allegiance of the candidates and the state he is in. All because of the non-democratic ancient first past the post system. Though in his place I would go to the station and at least deface a ballot as a sign of contempt.

▲

tirant 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What regulation are you expecting to be passed and why do you believe monopolies are bad?

If a monopoly appears due to superior offerings, better pricing and quicker innovation, I fail to see why it needs to be a bad thing. They can be competed against and historically that has always been the case.

On the other hand, monopolies appearing due to regulations, permissions, patents, or any governmental support, are indeed terrible, as they cannot be competed against.

▲

sph 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Without regulation, money begets money and monopolies will form.

Ahem, you'll find that with regulation, money begets money and monopolies will form. That is, unless you magically produce legislators which are incorruptible, have perfect knowledge and always make the perfect choice.

Even the Big Bang was imperfect, and matter clumps together instead of being perfectly distributed in the available space.