Sep 24, 2008 16:35
So I took a look at the Alibi and see a pretty unique article, "What's the difference? Nonvoters ask". It's on active non-voters. Everyone always has their head stuck up someone else's ass so you never hear about the demographic. It presents several perspectives from readers as to why they don't vote. I can still see how the reasons are stupid, but then again, the whole point is that no matter how stupid it is to not vote, it is still significantly stupider to vote. Hearing how much Obama spam there is everywhere you go is kind of weird because it is a strong and unified movement (unlike the democrats in the last two elections). Nonetheless, it is still quite obvious that the whole campaign to get people to get out and vote really is a not really even disguised attempt to get people to vote for the democratic candidate for the simple reason that those who don't vote tend to be a lost democratic force. Republicans vote, and much like voters, republicans are stupid. Now, don't get me wrong, Obama is a miracle in American politics. He is still too much of a neo-lib (like a neocon, but with the left wing - a mainstream political movement that contradicts the values of its own wing, like the neocon approach to globalism and the neolib approach to gun control), but he is just a mainstream politician, after all.
They say it all starts with voting. By getting involved in the vote, you take the first step to change, right? So, if you vote, you are by default throwing your vote away. But at least you did your modern American duty. As for the person who actively didn't vote, they still got involved by being active in the decision. Sure, you aren't making much of a statement if you refuse to vote and the world will go along without caring what you have to say. It's the exact same thing for voting, though. The exact same thing. That one vote is outside of the boundaries of a significant difference by far relative to all the other voters. The thing that makes the nonvoters more justified than the voters, I say, is that even if you had 100% of the vote - you can vote for either candidate and they will win - you still haven't made a difference relative to the size of the problem our divine approach to government is supposed to solve. The president has very strong executive powers, especially in the military, but the office of the president is not the strongest branch. Even if Obama moves us in a good direction, he's not as crazy as Ron Paul. Obama isn't going to start tearing the fucked up institutions of our country apart and come up with a strategic solution (like eliminating eight major departments such as the IRS, the Federal Reserve, and the department of education). Ron Paul is not worth voting for, but the problem is, he is the only candidate worth voting against. Everyone else doesn't deserve the electoral process.
If you participate in the problem, you're part of it. It's not hard. Sincere citizenship cannot be practiced in our modern voting process. It's not voting that's so seriously broken, it's that national foundation it is built on. Voting in modern America can never justify your beliefs or fulfill your citizen's duty. When you vote, you are asking for entirely selfish desires to get what you want. Voting is selfish and in the classic sense un-American. A lot needs to be destroyed before voting will ever mean something hear again.