How involved are you in politics?

[Disgustipated]

Vote every major election (2 years where I'm from). Many people only vote every 4 years for Prez, but congressmen and Senate races are just as important.

I don't belong to a real political party, so no primaries for me. And I skipped a recent election for judges, often no one runs against them.

Never donated. I don't trust any candidate, and none of them align with my politics (since I have both liberal and conservative views on different things). There is no political party that shares my views (libertarians are close, but their fantasy of limited government is unworkable).

 

[The_J]

Where were you at the time? You shouldn't need to voter register for EU elections in the Netherlands, even if you are a German citizen, though I don't know what German law says on German nationals voting for European elections outside Germany or inside it for that matter.

Na, different problem.
I got a letter telling me that I can vote in NL if I say so, otherwise I'll be able to vote in DE. I wanted to vote in DE, therefore did not reply to the NL letter. But in DE I could not vote, because I forgot to register (because I thought it wouldn't be necessary after I registered for the federal elections before), and in NL I therefore also could not vote, because I didn't say so.
-> stupid me.

 

[LucyDuke]

I vote enough but I've gotten disgusted with political discussion. Can't follow news anymore.

 

[Smellincoffee]

I lost faith in D.C. at some point in 2007 and have been a small-is-beautiful localist since then. Problem is the closest city has horrible politics, so I live out in the country. I still vote in elections (ballot issues and third parties) mostly because some small fragment wants to believe. I keep that little fragment alive by avoiding the news, because if I had to see what D.C. was up to on a daily basis, I would be completely hopeless.

 

[Lexicus]

The poll also perhaps unconsciously reveals the limitations of the creator's notion of what it means to be involved in politics. No option for working in outside-the-electoral-system activism, which is probably more important than merely voting.

 

[Commodore]

I don't vote and I try to discourage others from voting as well. So I guess you could say I'm pretty involved since trying to convince people not to vote is a political action and engaging in the process in an anti-social, destructive sorta way.

 

[Kozmos]

I usually vote for the most central party I can find, because I believe compromise usually (not always) produces the most well-adjusted systems. I'm not otherwise involved, but I may be in the future, depending on Fortune.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I don't vote and I try to discourage others from voting as well. So I guess you could say I'm pretty involved since trying to convince people not to vote is a political action and engaging in the process in an anti-social, destructive sorta way.

Why would you discourage people from voting?

Anyone telling me that would get told rather emphatically where they could put their discouragement.

I almost didn't get to vote in last October's federal election here because the Returning Officer took a notion that it was optional for her to ensure that mobility-challenged voters who meet the eligibility requirements for in-home special ballots were able to vote.

It's not optional. It's the law, and she tried her damnedest to weasel out of it, while asking an outrageous lot of personal questions and requesting that the Elections Canada staff sent to my home be allowed to look at my current bank statement "for ID purposes."


Canada's voting system needs a thorough overhaul. One thing the Liberals ran on was a promise that October 2015 would be the last election that we ever had with a "first past the post" system. They've started to work toward keeping that promise, and now the hard part will be to figure out what system to put in its place. It's really rich how the Reformacons are suddenly preaching that this needs a referendum... their party didn't consider it necessary to consult the people when they made sweeping changes of their own that included prohibiting the Chief Electoral Officer from investigating fraud and other forms of wrongdoing or irregularities, or even encouraging people to vote... and ramming through the (Un)Fair Elections Act, which was designed to disenfranchise the segments of the population who they didn't think would be Conservative supporters.

 

[azzaman333]

I vote because I have to.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I usually go to the polling place to cast write-in votes for myself or other candidates who are not running, as a mild sort of protest. Sometimes I'll vote for a Libertarian, only very rarely for either a Democrat or a Republican.

I always try to research the candidates in depth before considering voting for them, but often have trouble finding much useful information. For local races in particular, candidates do a terrible job of explaining their platforms or principles. I don't usually bother researching candidates who run unopposed, but always make a point of writing someone in against them.


I did not bother voting in the last two local elections. I worked late on one of those dates, had a bad cold on the other, and was not paying attention to the calendar well enough to have the time to research the options first anyway.


When I was a young child my father took me along to many political events and to canvass the neighborhood talking to neighbors and asking if we could put signs in their yards. He was very involved in Republican politics in the early 1990s, even acting as a campaign manager and a treasurer to a few candidates. In one Republican primary he happened to be the CPA for all of the candidates. Only one of them ever won, and he quickly fired my dad to hire a new guy in Washington DC.

 

[Cutlass]

I vote in just about every election I'm eligible to. I used to do some campaign work, 20 or more years ago. Not interested in that now. Pretty disillusioned with politics these days.

 

[Commodore]

Why would you discourage people from voting?

I'm not entirely convinced this whole democracy thing is such a good idea and because I'm not a huge fan of mob rule and tyranny by majority.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm not entirely convinced this whole democracy thing is such a good idea and because I'm not a huge fan of mob rule and tyranny by majority.

Trust me, you'd enjoy living under an actual tyranny far less.

 

[warpus]

Very involved, I am the President of Canada.

 

[Commodore]

Trust me, you'd enjoy living under an actual tyranny far less.

All tyranny is "actual tyranny" whether it's some dictator oppressing people or the teeming throngs imposing their will on minority factions that disagree with them.

In fact, I would say, in theory, a dictator can actually be less tyrannical since it is much easier to change the mind of a single person than it is to change the minds of millions. So it would be much more likely that you could convince a dictator to enact, say, universal healthcare than it would be to convince enough people to vote for it in a democracy.

 

[Bootstoots]

Very involved, I am the President of Canada.

Spoiler naughty words :

Link to video.

 

[Traitorfish]

In fact, I would say, in theory, a dictator can actually be less tyrannical since it is much easier to change the mind of a single person than it is to change the minds of millions. So it would be much more likely that you could convince a dictator to enact, say, universal healthcare than it would be to convince enough people to vote for it in a democracy.

How's that worked out, then, historically?

 

[Commodore]

How's that worked out, then, historically?

Well...we're still here and our society keeps progressing so I'd say not too bad. I mean, things definitely could have been much, much worse for humanity historically.

 

[Lexicus]

All tyranny is "actual tyranny" whether it's some dictator oppressing people or the teeming throngs imposing their will on minority factions that disagree with them.

Well in the US and most other countries with electoral democracy there are Constitutions guaranteeing individual rights.
The 'tyranny of the majority' concept is largely just that: a concept, with no bearing on reality.

In fact, I would say, in theory, a dictator can actually be less tyrannical since it is much easier to change the mind of a single person than it is to change the minds of millions. So it would be much more likely that you could convince a dictator to enact, say, universal healthcare than it would be to convince enough people to vote for it in a democracy.

http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-health-care-americas-still-not-on-it/259153/

Well, look at the map:



I'd say a majority of these countries are run with some form of parliamentary democracy and not by dictators. I guess what I'm saying is, so much for your theory

 

[Traitorfish]

Well...we're still here and our society keeps progressing so I'd say not too bad. I mean, things definitely could have been much, much worse for humanity historically.

But "we", twenty-first century humanity, live predominantly under non-autocratic government. Those autocracies which still exist tend to be either crumbling hermit-kingdoms or oil-rich despotates, neither of which contribute much to the cause of progress, or even humanity's continued survival. So is there some historical pattern the rest of us are missing, where we see the greatest "progress" coinciding with autocratic government?