Re: Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024, Chris Buckley wrote:

On 2024-10-25, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Oct 2024, The Horny Goat wrote:

I'm from BC (Canada) and had our provincial election Saturday. I voted
in the advance poll at our local recreation center which is about 2-3
miles from home and fairly close to my favorite grocery store. Can't
recall whether I voted first shopped after or vice versa but it was
the same trip away from home. My candidate didn't win but that's not
the point - far better to have voted and lost than not to have voted
at all.
>

I disagree. If there is no candidate that represents my view, I would be
doing democracy a disservice by voting. By not voting, I send a clear
signal that the current politicians are of low quality and/or incompetent,
and that they in no way deserve me participating in the system.

>
I very strongly disagree. Voting is critical; at a minimum we must
distinguish our distaste for current candidates from the apathetic not
caring about the issue. Vote for the candidate you agree with most; if
there actually are none, then write-in "Mickey Mouse" or "Hatsune
Miku" if you're somewhat younger. That sends a clear signal; not
voting sends nothing at all in the US (it does send a signal in those
countries with mandatory voting.) You are not going to find a
candidate that represents your view 100% unless you're the candidate
yourself.

It does send a clear signal, since it is known how many people have voted. Since it is also known how many people (more or less) live in the country, it is possible to see the nr of people participating in the election.
Once this goes below 50% democracy loses what ever little authority it has, and once it goes down to 10%-20%, its time is over, and will consist only of politicians voting for other politicians, while others will mainly just get on with their lives.
Without votes, there's no authority behind a democratically elected government.

This is now the third Presidential election in a row that I can't vote
for either major party candidate - in the previous 40 years it only
happened once. Times are changing. But the need to vote is still there.
>

In additiona, democracy is a violent act, since it represents you, through
the possible force of the majority, imposing your will on others, by the
threat of violence if they do not comply. This is unethical.
>
Pacifists and libertarians can, due to their ethics and political beliefs,
not vote in democratic elections and remain consistent with their moral
positions.

>
D, I would not have thought that you were that much a proponent of
today's cancel culture. The modern notion that if you object strongly
to one belief of a person or group/party you must completely disassociate
yourself from that person or group, is tearing apart our society.  We're
unable to discuss or even recognize the good qualities of that person/group.

I think cancel culture is to deny people who do not want to vote, the possibility to not vote. By forcing them to vote, actually _you_ are engaging in cancel culture and not accepting people as they are and respecting their beliefs.
I think this is a strong indicator of the polarization in the US and it is ripping people and society apart.

There's no reason for pacifists and libertarians not to participate in
a democracy despite their disagreement about what some of what a
government should do. That's cancel culture.  Would you really not
vote for someone like Chase Oliver (Libertarian Party candidate)
because of that, D?  Just about the only group who philosophically
should not vote are the anarchists.

I describe the reason. If they vote, per definition, they are no longer pacifists or libertarians, since they are initiating force. It's cancel culture not to accept them as they are, but to try and force or goade them into voting. That's highly troubling and I would never have thought that you would engage in it.

As they say "Democracy sucks; it just sucks less than the alternatives."

No, peace and libertarianism ios the best option. Democracy will just take us back to socialism or fascism in a roundabout way.
I will leave you to ponder some good arguments against why we should not engage in democracy, but move on to libertarianism:
Lack of Knowledge Among Voters
In a democratic system, the assumption is that all citizens are informed enough to make educated decisions regarding their leaders and policies. However, many voters may lack adequate knowledge about political issues, candidates, or the implications of their choices. This can lead to poor decision-making and the election of unqualified representatives.
Inefficiency in Decision-Making
Democracies often involve lengthy deliberation processes and require consensus-building among various stakeholders. This can result in delays in decision-making compared to more centralized systems like monarchies, where decisions can be made swiftly by a single ruler.
Corruption and Vote Bank Politics
The integrity of elections can be compromised by corruption, including vote-buying and manipulation of voter bases through targeted promises or incentives. Such practices undermine the democratic process and lead to governance that does not reflect the will of the people.
Uninformed Electorate
An educated electorate is crucial for democracy to function effectively. When voters lack education or awareness about political issues, they may choose representatives based on popularity rather than qualifications or policies, leading to ineffective governance.
High Costs of Elections
Conducting regular elections requires substantial financial resources for campaigning, administration, and logistics. This cost burden can divert funds from essential public services and infrastructure development.
Majority Rule vs Minority Rights
In a pure democracy, majority rule can lead to the oppression of minority groups whose interests may be overlooked or disregarded entirely. This creates an imbalance where the rights of individuals or smaller groups are not adequately protected.
Lack of Transparency and Accountability
Democratic governments may struggle with transparency in their operations and decision-making processes, leading to a lack of accountability among elected officials. This can foster environments where corruption thrives without checks on power.
Instability Due to Leadership Changes
Frequent changes in leadership due to electoral cycles can create instability within government institutions and policy continuity, making it difficult for long-term strategies to be implemented effectively.
Populism Over Rational Governance
Political candidates may resort to populist tactics that prioritize emotional appeal over rational discourse and sound policy-making. This focus on immediate gratification rather than long-term solutions can lead to detrimental outcomes for society as a whole.
Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem
According to this theorem from social choice theory, no voting system can perfectly translate individual preferences into collective decisions while satisfying certain fairness criteria when there are three or more options available. This highlights inherent flaws in democratic voting systems that challenge their effectiveness.