Who is it who calls these elections free and fair? Western governments? Surely you are aware of the democratic defecit that now plagues the west

Ok, elaborate. What is wrong with the elections? Do you think they are rigged? Do you think, that the percentages you see in the end are not the true values?

Look at the numbers. I would say governments are already illegitimate and certainly lack any clear mandate. Few people vote and those who do are from the most brainwashed generation.

The government has one main goal - to centralize power. The free market tends to distribute power over a larger group of individuals so the government is against it. Nationalism tends to help centralization - so the government is for it.

The two parties are a sham. If the government had its stuff together it would initiate wars and push nationalism under right wing parties, then shut down free market activity and jail wistleblowers under left wing parties.

But at this point they can't even wait 8 years to implement the other half of the agenda, so parties are losing their legitimacy even in many brainwashed cable news audiences. They have to resort to Orwellian tactics by claiming that war is to protect the citizens that bombs are being dropped on and somehow sneaking in the least transparent whistleblower-attacking government in recent memory even though it is a left-wing party.

To their credit they are trying a last-minute switch, hoping people will forget what has been happening. With Obama apparently going for a deal with Iran and Cuba... or some other things like that. I was pretty surprised at how even Netanyahu was playing into it so much. Even saw a news clip where he was giving a press conference and his face was lit from the bottom... It's getting weird. I think it is too late to turn Obama into a hero, but they are trying.

Message to the government, on your march to totalitarianism take it one step at a time, every 8 years switch legs. This bunny hopping just looks awkward and makes people take notice.

I mean jail whistleblowers under right wing parties

I didn't vote, therefore the government has no mandate.

Self-fulfilling prophecy or self-delusion?

Yeah, Marlen, sure, what governments are doing, and especially what US government is doing is despicable, but using fear to gain votes is one thing, and rigging elections is a totally other thing. If half of the society are idiots, well, too bad. It's their right to be influenced by media and this kind of tactics. But by not voting, even despite the awareness, you make their votes only more influential.

No they are not rigged in the traditional way, I think the vote counts are close to accurate. But the candidates who are on the ballot, the media coverage of the approved versus disapproved candidates, the behavior of the candidates once they in power and their accountability to the public versus to the donors - that is rigged. And that it why it is not a democracy. If it is not a democracy, why vote?

And what Russel Brand said, about a revolution - that is fucking dangerous. Not to the governments, not to corporations but to the people, because that means, that a group of people would just go "fuck this, fuck the elections, the people who vote don't know shit so we're just forcing our views on the entire society". Not to mention, enforce egalitarian socialism with redistribution of wealth. Well, I hinted it before but that fucking sounds like Russia in November of 1918. And you know how that ended? With genocides, wars, and not at all prosperity and freedom for the people.

"It's their right to be influenced by media and this kind of tactics."

yassem nailed it. That's the irony of this position. You are co-opted precisely when you believe you're doing something *you* want which is really what *someone else* wants.

"Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else have your way."
-Daniele Vare

@Thucy, it isn't democracy just because you don't like the candidates : D
Fucking stand for election yourself if you honestly believe there is absolutely not a single candidate who corresponds to your views. Run for the president, enlighten people about the system, make them vote for you. I mean, if it's true, more people should think like you do - it should work, shouldn't it?

I wonder how many of you people who have 100% faith in the electoral system in the United States could explain exactly what happens to your ballot after you drop it in the box.

Or do you believe there to be barriers for entering politics? The traditional, vote-based politics. Why all the dissatisfied people, the 99% don't have a candidate?

The point he's making is that no matter how wise he is, he doesn't stand a chance without a shitload of donors and a whole load of other things that don't sound very democratic.

Surely that's not a huge stretch of the facts?

Why so? There is internet. You can make people occupy anything (except for jobs apparently) but you cannot make them vote?

Like TMOW a while ago, I'd also like to express my happiness with the Dutch system again: all the parties who get enough votes for at least one seat are actually properly represented and from which province you are is irrelevant for national elections. It just makes more sense..

Well, now we are talking about the mechanics of the electoral system, which in the USA are absolutely nuts (Gore vs Bush? WTF...), but so are so many things in the USA they should have get used to it by now. I don't thing that's the thing Thucy is boycotting though.

Thucy apparently hates the Dutch system as much as any other.

And stephanie, electoral threshold is not such a bad thing all together. In Poland for example it is impossible to make any coalition of more than two parties so the 5% threshold prevents too many parties from entering (currently there are 4), and thus enabling creation of a government.

@yassem: Hypothetically, I make a site called www.steephie22forpresident.com. You think the entire nation is suddenly going to go to that site?

I agree that there are possibilities, but if there's an unknown ultra-wise person running for election against a Clinton or whatever with lots of donors, I think the Clinton has the biggest chance of winning.

Can we at least agree on that?

Angst and cognitive dissonance.

Deal with it, and vote.

@yassem: Wouldn't the easier solution be to simply allow coalitions of more than two parties?

(As per the Dutch system)

Psy's Gangnam Style video has had over 2.3 BILLION views.

That the power of the Internet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bZkp7q19f0

They are not prohibited (which system would do that?), it is just impossible to make them because of all the differences between parties. Basically everyone hate everybody too much to create a coalition of more than two parties. The last government that comprised of 3 parties lasted for 2 years, and did almost absolutely nothing.

And exactly as Jeff said - if there was a candidate that would be so much better than Clinton he would be quite famous. For fucks sake, it is a paradox that you would think you getting people NOT to vote via the internet is possible, but getting them to vote for a great, impeccable candidate isn't. Of course, it is impossible in practice, but that's because simply no-one is impeccable, and getting them to rule by a revolution rather than election is surely even worse than you have now.

I will vote if there is someone worth voting for. The "lesser of two evils" argument ignores 1) that voting is an endorsement of the existing form of government and 2) that the difference between the two ruling parties is miniscule on the most substantive issues.

Not all revolution need be violent. I am for democracy, but what we have now is no democracy.

@Kuta

Is it power really? It's a pop music video. Is it power that the billions are watching sports games and music videos while the proceedinngs of the government are watched only by the rich?

@Thucy, you are just lazy. Too lazy to make a choice, and that's the worst type of lazy.

@yassem: I miss the beer lover's party....