On voting and civil disobedience

[Kalawishis]

I think there's three reasons why people vote:

A. They feel it's their civic duty.
B. They enjoy the experience.
C. They somehow think it influences things.

At the end of the day, the likelihood of your candidate winning if you voted for them and the likelihood of your candidate winning if you didn't are equal. I don't mean off by a small fraction, or slightly different. I mean so close that they are effectively equal and to try to measure a difference would be absurd. If you live in a red state and vote blue, or vice versa, your might as well have not have voted. If you live in a swing state, you still might as well have not have voted. The closest election in U.S. history was the one in 2000, where it all depended on one swing state, Florida, and Bush won there by a margin of 537 votes. If you were a Democrat and had voted that night instead of staying home, Bush would have won by 536.

Of course, you may be saying, "But if every Democrat/Republican thought like you, the election would be decided by the Republicans/Democrats!" But not everybody thinks like me. There's always a population dispersed throughout America that will vote for the three reasons I gave above. Furthermore, it's going to be an even split of Democrats and Republicans at any time. These two parties are probably going to be the main parties in America until the end of the universe. If America shifts left, the Republicans will shift left to not lose votes. If America shifts right (like it is doing right now), the Democrats will shift right to not lose votes. It's shifting right now. Bernie Sanders is a reaction against this, but Bernie Sanders is going to lose the nomination, and Hillary is going to win it, and the party will shift right. How could they not? The Republicans control the Senate, House of Representatives, and a large majority of states. Had they better presidential unity, they'd steamroll Hillary.

But let me get back on topic. Civil disobedience: it's pretty dumb to do it. If a large group all breaks a law together they could make a splash, but putting yourself at risk for arrest (which would destroy your professional career, mind you) for the sake of making your movement 9,875 strong instead of 9,874 strong is mindbogglingly dumb. Like voting, better to let everybody else do the heavy lifting.

 

[Blazade]

Eh, you can argue relevance but I don't see how any of that shows that it's not just equal, but better not to vote. Pretty much all that ends up showing is that young people don't show up to the polls as often as other demographics, and what do they get out of that? Some kind of statement about how the political system isn't properly catering to their needs? No, probably just the sentiment that people who don't turn up are lazy and unreliable and that there's little sense appealing to them in campaigns. You can call it a rebellion, but without any intent to actively express that you're never getting the message across.

You can talk about "actually equal" at that magnitude, or go the other direction in hyperbole and say that if everyone neglects then it's bad, but the reality is that large groups of people form from common ideas, from culture. You filling out a ballot in private is a reflection of those ideas, not an effort to affect others. It's a shallow metric, but the ballot is just one way that the people in power can understand a diverse set of thoughts, and the more complete the survey, the better the system gets.

I study and research math for a living. I teach classes for and talk to a lot of people who have a very deep seated culture oriented fear of math and stereotype against people who choose to work with it. It's my hope that by talking to people and being myself that I can play my part in changing culture for the better, that if my idea or example is strong enough it spreads with whatever small momentum it can have. It's the same with politics, the people you talk to are worth more than any vote you cast, but at the end your conversation, I'd argue that agreeing "Man it'll never matter but Bernie's the closest to what I want so I'll vote for him" makes more of a cultural difference than "Man it'll never matter so fuck the system, who needs our vote".

 

[Kalawishis]

If I vote more, I'm not going to better the system. I am aware that a more complete survey is a better system. But if I vote, the survey is, say, 78,634,234 people participating. If I didn't vote, it's 78,634,233 participating. I'm not communicating anything to people in power, because I'm not communicating anything valuable, period. At that level, the effect of my vote is negligible. If I vote for Bernie (even if I voted, I would not vote for Bernie; maybe Trump for kicks) instead of totally sticking it to the man by not voting, Bernie is not stronger at all.

Furthermore, it is good that you're going against math stereotypes, but your effect is also quite negligible to the point where you could fulfill every stereotype perfectly and have no discernible impact on culture as compared to what you're doing right now. You, of course, individually. Honestly I believe math stereotypes are dying out on their own due to social forces much larger than us. If you are with the tide, so be it. If the social forces change and you go against the tide, you will not be able to do anything with your current methods.

I am not trying to diminish the individual here at all. What I'm trying to say is that the orthodox, popular methods of pushing change like voting, protesting, or doing what you're doing, on the individual level, does not have any real effect. There are, however, unorthodox and unpopular (in the sense that most people don't do them, not in the sense that they're hated) methods of making change bigger than yourself. For example, the Numberphile YouTube channel has had a pretty good effect in that it has engaged more of the general population with all manner of math and broken stereotypes of mathematicians, far more than if the creators themselves decided to simply try to go against math stereotypes by talking to the people they meet.

 

[billymills]

I don't see why I have to pay taxes. I'd be better if everyone else did the heavy lifting. The government's budget is in the billions/trillions. What would the thousand dollars I contribute affect at all?

 

[thdhted]

I don't see why I have to pay taxes. I'd be better if everyone else did the heavy lifting. The government's budget is in the billions/trillions. What would the thousand dollars I contribute affect at all?

Because there's approximately 300 million people in the U.S. at any one time. If just half of them are paying at a minimum 1000$ per year, that's about 1.5 Trillion dollars. It's a "it all adds up" kind of thing.

 

[v]

lol

 

[billymills]

Kalawishis, the point I was trying to make is that taxes and voting are both examples of collective action. Taxes are enforced, but the fact the can make a lot of money by taxing a little amount from a lot of people is important. Voting is not enforced in the united states, but is enforced in other countries. I don't think you'd argue that voting is absolutely useless in the US, but useful in Australia.

Unions are another example of collective action, and are also (somewhat, or sometimes) enforced. You may not particularly agree with unions (or understand them, idk), but you are probably familiar with some of the outcomes they've helped produce. No, joining your union may not have immediate short-term benefits for you, it may cost more, and it may put you at odds with management, but if everyone left the union, the positive outcomes would be retracted.

For a lot of these issues, it comes down to an issue of enforcement. For taxes, it's simply easier to require everyone to pay them than to restrict services you have access to. (How could the government prevent you from using sidewalks for example.) For voting, it's not really necessary to enforce, because not voting lets everyone else enjoy more benefits (it's as if not paying your taxes required everyone else to pay less). The benefits for voting are particular focus towards certain groups during elections. For example, you may notice that seniors get more focus from the majority of candidates, because they are the demographic that votes the most often. Youth vote rarely, and therefore get less attention. Long term voting habits affect this attention, and it's a sort of enforcement that voting places on itself.

You're right that one vote never makes a difference. What's more important is to be perceived as being intent to vote, and to encourage people with similar opinions (form voting blocks) to vote.

And yea, I always act like this irl =/

 

[OLD GREGG (im back baby)]

What's more important is to be perceived as being intent to vote, and to encourage people with similar opinions (form voting blocks) to vote.

This is politically correct drivel.
Being able to protest and vote does not stop tyranny. There were constitutions that allowed people to vote and protest during the reigns of Mao Tse Tung, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and even today in North Korea they have the right to protest and vote.

 

[JES]

This is politically correct drivel.
Being able to protest and vote does not stop tyranny. There were constitutions that allowed people to vote and protest during the reigns of Mao Tse Tung, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and even today in North Korea they have the right to protest and vote.

True. In North Korea, anyone who protests will probably be labeled as an enemy of the state, and treated accordingly (which is why they don't and won't). And if they don't vote for Kim Jong, Heaven help them, because they don't tolerate that either. Sometimes, if the threat of losing office isn't enough, the threat of facing the business ends of rifles and pitchforks is necessary to curb tyranny, but it is still a last resort. Not that I condone force or violence except for as a last resort where all other options have been used up.

 

[billymills]

When have i ever claimed voting stops tyranny? Of course it doesn't. This already assumes that people are actually listening to the voters.

I'm just attempting to explain collective action.

 

[Kalawishis]

Kalawishis, the point I was trying to make is that taxes and voting are both examples of collective action. Taxes are enforced, but the fact the can make a lot of money by taxing a little amount from a lot of people is important. Voting is not enforced in the united states, but is enforced in other countries. I don't think you'd argue that voting is absolutely useless in the US, but useful in Australia.

Unions are another example of collective action, and are also (somewhat, or sometimes) enforced. You may not particularly agree with unions (or understand them, idk), but you are probably familiar with some of the outcomes they've helped produce. No, joining your union may not have immediate short-term benefits for you, it may cost more, and it may put you at odds with management, but if everyone left the union, the positive outcomes would be retracted.

For a lot of these issues, it comes down to an issue of enforcement. For taxes, it's simply easier to require everyone to pay them than to restrict services you have access to. (How could the government prevent you from using sidewalks for example.) For voting, it's not really necessary to enforce, because not voting lets everyone else enjoy more benefits (it's as if not paying your taxes required everyone else to pay less). The benefits for voting are particular focus towards certain groups during elections. For example, you may notice that seniors get more focus from the majority of candidates, because they are the demographic that votes the most often. Youth vote rarely, and therefore get less attention. Long term voting habits affect this attention, and it's a sort of enforcement that voting places on itself.

You're right that one vote never makes a difference. What's more important is to be perceived as being intent to vote, and to encourage people with similar opinions (form voting blocks) to vote.

And yea, I always act like this irl =/

"I don't think you'd argue that voting is absolutely useless in the US, but useful in Australia."

I actually do think voting is useful in Australia, but useless in the U.S. From the perspective of one person, and one person individually, it helps to vote in Australia, because otherwise you'll have to pay a fine, whereas in the States you will not get fined. In Australia you have the utility of an averted punishment - you end with with more money when you vote than when you don't. In the U.S. you have the same amount of money whether you voted or not. Therefore, it is the best choice of an individual to vote in Australia, and to not vote in the U.S.

You bring up unions, which is an example I'm not unfamiliar with. I know they don't work without mass participation. However, I individually am not a "mass". I am just me. Given a large enough union (and it doesn't even have to be particularly large, maybe just more than fifty or so members), my leaving would be inconsequential. The union is not as "strong" as before, in the sense that a bathtub is not as "full" as before when you take a teaspoon of water out of it. Yet, I reap all the benefits of unionization, with all the benefits of being friendly to management, with all the benefits of not having to pay dues, with minuscule damage to the union. Furthermore, these are not "short term benefits" as you say. These are benefits that are as long term as the union is surviving. If the union is growing, it's still going to gain members without you. If the union is shrinking, there's no point in staying on the sinking ship. It is always the best decision to leave the union, whatever the health of the union.

I agree that it's matter of enforcement. That's pretty much why there was so much drama in Wisconsin in regards to those right to work laws. The protesters knew that if the unions didn't have teeth, they would simply hemorrhage members, not because the members were stupid, but because they were smart.

"You're right that one vote never makes a difference. What's more important is to be perceived as being intent to vote, and to encourage people with similar opinions (form voting blocks) to vote."

Being perceived as being intent to vote doesn't actually matter either. If the pool of people intent to vote for small enough so that you matter, it's small enough that people would more likely laugh at it than take it seriously. If the pool is large enough to be taken seriously, then you don't matter. I do, however agree with you that it is possible to make a difference via encouraging people to vote for a specific candidate. Yes, I am aware that I'm encouraging people not to vote. However, if you have enough charisma and whatnot, you can find yourself in control of perhaps millions of votes for a specific candidate - then you would matter. If you want to try that, so be it. Even then, your personal vote won't matter, and I would still say that it wouldn't be best to vote yourself.

 

[OLD GREGG (im back baby)]

When have i ever claimed voting stops tyranny? Of course it doesn't. This already assumes that people are actually listening to the voters.

I'm just attempting to explain collective action.

Fair enough Billymills, no offense intended. I was just trying to help pro-voters see the big picture. There is only one course of action for civilians in the face of tyranny and I don't mean voting.

 

[Kalawishis]

Fair enough Billymills, no offense intended. I was just trying to help pro-voters see the big picture. There is only one course of action for civilians in the face of tyranny and I don't mean voting.

Emigration?

 

[sunny004]

Emigration?

Or uprising/revolt.

 

[Kalawishis]

Emigration is infinitely safer. If the U.S. started getting to the point where I was at risk then I would probably move to Australia, where I originally lived (I'm a dual citizen). It looks romantic being an insurgent but I'd wager it's actually haunting, famishing, painful, and brief. If I lived in the U.S. before the Revolutionary War and I didn't want to deal with Britain's tyranny, I'd have probably moved west past the Appalachians. Although if the Proclamation of 1763 could manage to keep me cooped up in the East, I maybe would have joined the revolt.

 

[JES]

Or uprising/revolt.

Revolution might sound noble and romantic, but make no mistake, it will have to be a peaceful and enlightened, otherwise it will be short and nasty, even if most of the military and law enforcement joined us (which some think might). I've heard rumors that the military has very powerful weapons that they'd be more than happy to use in order to keep control, so most of those who revolt and anyone unlucky enough to be at the wrong place will end up dead, and the rest of us under the yoke of the military/industrial complex. Using a Pokémon analogy, I think it's be like attacking a Wobbuffet head on in a single battle. I think we all know how fun that is. Granted that this came from a conspiracy theorist, but with the amount of corruption I've seen, nothing would surprise me anymore.

Passive refusal to follow laws and taxed that we deem unfair, and as one friend has put it: "Growing food gardens, spending money with ethical companies, not paying tax etc. starving the beast and non-compliance" is the best way to go if we really want to make real change.

 

[vonFiedler]

I've heard rumors that the military has very powerful weapons that they'd be more than happy to use in order to keep control,

Literally why would anyone in the military be more than happy to use weapons on its citizens?

In violent revolution, militaries have a tendency to be pro-populace (being largely made of people serving short-term in an attempt to do good, disillusionment with violent power due to things like PTSD), while the police tend to be pro-state (long-time careers benefited by status quo, fascination with power often unchallenged by real conflict).

 

[JES]

Literally why would anyone in the military be more than happy to use weapons on its citizens?

In violent revolution, militaries have a tendency to be pro-populace (being largely made of people serving short-term in an attempt to do good, disillusionment with violent power due to things like PTSD), while the police tend to be pro-state (long-time careers benefited by status quo, fascination with power often unchallenged by real conflict).

Sorry, I was referring to a (small) faction of the military, you could even call them a shadow government, or the breakaway civilization. I'm referring to the military/industrial complex and that they have very advanced weaponry that they'd kept knowledge about from the public. I've heard some people think that most of the military would side with the populace (and I think they are right), but we're possibly landing into conspiracy theory territory here. I'm talking about directed energy and other exotic weapons, reverse engineered from recovered UFO's.

I'm not sure that I believe any of 100% though, and I sure hope that it isn't. Of course, given the amount of corruption there is in the government, maybe the stories of a rotten top brass is also true.

 

[Kalawishis]

I'd like to see evidence of UFOs.

 

[vonFiedler]

I don't think that any talk about ufos and energy weapons is at all going to be really relevant to this conversation, but maybe that's just me

It stands to reason that there'd be as many military supporters of revolution as there are people proportionally. But if we're gonna try to inject some realism into this conversation, we have to admit that for mobilization purposes in a country this big that the percent of dissidents has to be incredibly high, which is hurt by the fact that we have two major factions in this country that in no way want to unify. I don't think that this is a boiling point that could be reached in my lifetime.

 

[billymills]

It stands to reason that there'd be as many military supporters of revolution as there are people proportionally.

I'd really like to hear some justification for this.

 

[vonFiedler]

I'd really like to hear some justification for this.

Military people are by and large just people. Officers, which only comprise about 1/5 of the military, may be different, but the political leanings of enlisted men are not reasonably far off from the leanings of the populace (no more than 10% depending on the study), in spite of southern-leaning enlistment strategies. A movement that is not supported by a large amount of people is not suddenly going to be supported by a large portion of the military just because of what I just said about militaries being pro-populace, so I was just clarifying that saying militaries are pro-populace does not mean they are pro-revolution.

 

[veiva]

Literally why would anyone in the military be more than happy to use weapons on its citizens?

In violent revolution, militaries have a tendency to be pro-populace (being largely made of people serving short-term in an attempt to do good, disillusionment with violent power due to things like PTSD), while the police tend to be pro-state (long-time careers benefited by status quo, fascination with power often unchallenged by real conflict).

Can you list notable examples of violent revolutions that occurred when the population was otherwise comfortable (e.g., most citizens have access to food, water, shelter, and even entertainment)? As it stands, while a great deal of the population ranges from struggling to poverty, general comfort is still far too high; poor Americans are poor by wealthy Western standards, but might as well be rich by the common denominator among the the numerous revolutions across Europe around the turn of the 20th century or even the countries involved in the Arab Spring...

If there was a sudden widespread violent revolution, then yes, I agree the military most definitely would be divided and ineffective. But the catalyst for such a revolution (widespread suffering: famine, destitution, etc) is not currently remotely volatile in this country by even the most wild stretch of the imagination.

Not to mention utilization of propaganda against a marginalized group can shift public perception to enable horrible atrocities across all sections of a population under some seemingly noble cause like safety or growth. Then the military isn't targeting civilians--they're targeting the enemy. Like, for example, blanketing a religious group as a cause of great woe under the pretense to restrict freedoms and the further escalations from there...

I really do think it's absurd that much anything else but greater involvement of younger people (e.g., those born after the 1980s or so) in the political process, greater utilization of technology for communication/organization/activism, and large, organized acts of non-violent civil disobedience is viable. I'd go as far to say it's the same unrealistic anti-establishment sentiment associated with teen idealism: an immature and unrealistic fantasy.

 

[vonFiedler]

As it stands, while a great deal of the population ranges from struggling to poverty, general comfort is still far too high;

I don't really have to accede to your request. You're right. Comfort breeds apathy. It's a strong and intentional deterrent to dissidence. It is, on a wide-scale, financial abuse. And it makes the tyranny of Brave New World much more realistic than 1984.

The thing is, the problems with the current establishment have been around since the beginning. Writers have been saying the same thing about the "American Dream" society in different forms for over a hundred years. Only in that respect, things are getting worse. The middle class is withering, and however you compare them to the third world, there are those in America who have to decide whether to eat or clothe their children.

But it's probably more than that ideological. People are forming strong anti-establishment beliefs that are flourishing on the internet, an already proven tool in combating corruption in smaller and less stable countries. It seems dismissive and silly to say that this is a teenage fantasy. I never felt like this as a teenager, and I'm certainly far past thinking I'm invincible. But mostly because comfort-induced apathy, which you point out inhibits uprising, is also apathy that inhibits "greater involvement of younger people". These are all things that show that, however it comes, change will take a lot of time in this country. It certainly won't be fantastic. We haven't even discussed whether this unpredictable change would likely be for the better or not. I know many historians who would believe that the stranglehold of power would ultimately only shift hands.

Let me put it the problems in less vague terms though. In America, things have gotten to the point where the #2 Presidential Candidate is a man who promises to use nuclear weapons and commit war crimes. But the #1 Candidate is very likely to be blocked even if he attains a majority vote because a different candidate is a more established shill for their party, backed by far more (and by default anyway) of the 1%. They would sooner accidentally give the country to a man that Europe rightly fears than purposefully relinquish what would likely be a very small amount of their control for a few years. That seems like a very real and imminent problem to me, and it's all the culmination of what you might write off as "first world problems".

 

[JES]

There isn't any one evidence of UFO's or alien visitation. It is one big puzzle, with little indications that there might not only be something to it, but that they've been coming here for a very long time.
From structures on the Cydonia Plains that are arranged in a at least very similar fashion to the Giza Strip that haven't been properly debunked by sending a probe there, to eyewitness testimonies of UFO's from as reliable witnesses as you can get: former military, police, and pilots, to little bits of evidence that haven't been properly debunked (and perhaps can't), such as the Val Johnson case where a police car was hit by a UFO, leaving the windshield shattered, a headlight and red emergency light damaged, and antennas bent at 90˚angles, which you can go see for yourself at the Marshall County Museum. This is in addition to the officer after whom the case is named after having suffered from red puffy eyes, similar to as if he had been exposed to a welder's torch at close range, and his wrist watch having missed 14 minutes of time. Missing time is a common element to cases involving these sorts of things.
I didn't come to this conclusion overnight, but from years of watching documentaries on the History Channel, listening to the evidence, and coming to the conclusion that there might be something behind the stories, and that the corporate media doesn't give it anywhere enough attention.

I could continue, but it is a huge subject, and could easily knock this off topic.

And I agree with vonFielder's assessment that unless the top 1% own 99% of the wealth, completely killing the middle class, and basically leaving two classes (the upper class and the lower class, like centuries ago), or our rights are seriously being trampled on, I don't think we'd see a coordinated revolution. And in order for such a revolution to be successful, those who are causing the problems intentionally would need to be the ones who need to be targeted (those who are giving and taking the bribes that are rotting our country). That I think is one of the possible reasons that campaign "contributors" want to remain anonymous (in addition to wanting to avoid scrutiny and criticism from the media and public of course): if the shit hits the fan, they can just wait in their mansions until the ruckus dies down, and hope they can pay the top brass of the military and police to restore order in their favor.

As long as most people though are able to live in reasonable comfort, health, and have their rights, they will see no need to make a stink of things. And it is probably too difficult for those who do live in poverty, or are unfairly prosecuted by the police suffer systemic racism to make a big enough stink of it like my family probably could. There is the factor that if it is a violent revolution, and it fails, martial law will be instated, possibly permanently for "security" reasons, and that those who sided with the revolution will be declared traitors and lose everything, including possibly their lives. That is why I think that a revolution will only become popular if the majority see it as a case where they have little or nothing to lose, and everything to gain, or there are enough people who know what is going on to pressure the government to stop and kick out the portion who is rotting away our country.