Because I'm a cool and froody kinda guy

@Thucy - we have police commisioner elections in the UK - Turnout was under 15% so most of those elected are in your eyes (correctly) illegitimate. They still draw their salaries and make decisions that affect our lives. Not voting hasn't changed anything.

@Octavious: Maybe because violence would be futile in this case, in his opinion? I would estimate him to be the kind of guy who would consider using violence if violence were used against him or anything he supports.

If I got that correctly, I wouldn't say that equals believing in violence. If violence happens, it happens and you can decide what to do with that fact. Doesn't make someone violent I'd say.

wow thanks steeph.

?

@Stephanie, your lack of logic is both amazing and amusing.
"First of all it sounds really sanctimonous to talk about all the wonderful things you do for your fellow people" - I honestly don't remember the last time someone someone was taking "direct action" that helped ANYONE.
"Second, people will say you're making stuff up to sound cool." - by that logic even saying "I take direct action" is burdened with the same argument. Why even bring it up then?
"Third..." - I am not trying to provoke shit. I say Thucy is lazy (and now I'll throw in a little bit of <<coward>> as well) for not participating in the system. He says I'm wrong, and I'm not even asking for a proof. I just want to here WHY he thinks I'm wrong.
"Last but not least, and I can't stress this enough, I'd be very surprised if he gives a single fuck about what some dude in Poland thinks." - well, right now you are trying to undermine the whole notion of this forum : D Why even start a discussion with people around the world if you don't give a single fuck, let alone spend like 30 minutes participating?

@Thucy, I just love how you think the system you live in is not democratic just because the voters are idiots who vote for people who have enough money to make a good campaign.

It seems to me you do not want democracy - in fact you want the exactly opposite. You don't like that the majority of people don't share your views so you would want a system where their votes doesn't count? The fact is that nor you, nor Mr. Brand have any right to question the choice of the society, and as far as democracy is concerned the only thing you can do is vote. I'll even go further to say - there are no democratic revolutions (there are so many great revolutions that made a country so much better and often turn it democratic, but while revolution can hold democratic values the mechanics are almost never democratic)

@yassem:
"I honestly don't remember the last time someone someone was taking "direct action" that helped ANYONE."

My fault, clearly.

"Why even bring it up then?"

I asked.

"I just want to here (sic) WHY he thinks I'm wrong."

I know, that's why you're provoking an answer in one of the cheapest ways known to man.

"Why even start a discussion with people around the world if you don't give a single fuck, let alone spend like 30 minutes participating?"

Why? Many reasons.
He was voicing an opinion, I typically use the forum as a soundboard for my less developed thoughts and typically I end up with new potentially useful connections if I approach people with goals similar to mine, in need of things I can provide, looking for similar things etc.
That's just three things that come to mind. None of these reasons involve giving a shit about the opinion of a random Polish dude and they all turn out fruitful on occasion.
It could also be to just have a nice discussion. That option definitely doesn't include a certain Polish dude.

@Stephanie, first of all you have to excuse my English. I am still hung over af (Bayern lost 1-3, wtf).
"Why even bring it up?" He (Thucy) brought it up, repeatedly.
And Stephanie, get you head out of your ass, Thucy is clearly trying to convince at least a part of participants, which is a clear sign of giving a fuck what they think. And Stephanie, are you using "Polish" as derogatory term you dutch scum? : D (btw, nothing wrong with being dutch, but you are a scum, as established in the thread about Ukraine)

Octavious, you are right to raise those issues regarding violence. But steephie has it partly and you have it partly. I do not believe violent internal revolutions are effective, because violence almost always breeds power structure and all sorts of other human sins. So a violent revolution is unlikely to become a true revolution. So when it comes to resistance to civil government I do not support violence, at least not as things are now. If it became a Syria situation and the government was literally bombing our protests, that would be different. But as it stands steephie is correct that I think violent tactics would only get people hurt and make us look bad.

The other side of the coin is, as you pointed out, I don't think killing is right at all. In self-defense or in defense of another it can be justified, but in a kind of tactical way, like a terrorist might employ, it is morally unacceptable. It would not be acceptable for example to kidnap a member of government and execute them on camera to make a statement, as ISIS does. But there is a legitimate place for the use of force. A legitimate state can use force to protect its citizens from themselves, as a policeman would against a roving gunman. A legitimate government can also defend itself against attack, and a legitimate government can also intervene to protect citizens abroad who are being attacked and have no legitimate government that will help. A populace is also justified in taking up arms against the government itself if it has become so onerous and violent towards the people themselves that non violence will only result in a bloodbath, as we saw in the protests in Syria in 2011.

But an illegitimate government using force illegitimately, like the invasion of Iraq, or like the gunning down of innocent people by police, is not acceptable. It is also not acceptable to resort to violence as an ideological tactic, like terrorists do. I may be one who fights for the environment but I am no Eco-terrorist. If however the government saw fit to open Fire on environmentalist protesters - they would justified to return fire.

Does that answer your question?

@Maniac

The low turnout is actually accomplishing something though - it is demonstrating that the government is illegitimate and unwanted by the electorate, which makes it undemocratic and justifies its immediate removal. I would say, ideologically, it has done a lot. Perhaps rigjt now the police commissioner is still in office, but when one day he or his succesor is removed, it will be a legitimate action - which is extremely important. I am not in favor of the overthrow of democracy itself, I ask for real democracy. I will not vote in an election which is put in for show - that is an insult to real democracy.

@yassem and others

Of the people who do bother to vote (and it interesting how the act of voting serves as a kind of rite-of-passage in our society, as if to say, well, as long as you vote, you don't have to engage socially in any other way, and if you don't vote, you're not *allowed* to engage socially in any other way - fascistic much?), of those, do you really think that they are making informed decisions? Or even a complete decision? Are you familiar with the terms "manufactured consent," "propaganda," "public relations," and indeed, "campaigning?"

All of this is nothing more than manipulation of thought. The people who vote are first of all, brainwashed into believe that their vote is actually significant and influences the broad direction of policy in the country - in short, they are led to believe that through their vote the wield power. This brainwashing is accomplished by the oligarchic power structure itself, which funnels the message through the media, the government, and corporate channels. You claim that my failure to vote and others' is the reason for the absence of any "real" candidate or "democratic" or "people's" candidate. This is a laughably sad, twisted interpretation. The actual reason is that such candidates are shut out by the elite power structure from the very beginning and thus ignored. If they do begin to garner attention anyway, they or their movement are soon co-opted by the powerful elite interests. In this way, what we have is not democratic, and the way to make it more democratic certainly isn't jusr to vote more under the current system. The system itself must be changed. We need perhaps a new constitution, at the very least new legislation, and quite possibly an entirely new government. This is also true at the global level, since these elites and their money is globalized, but democracy is not. These changes, If and when they come, will arise organically from the bottom uo and not the other way around. If it is the other way around it will just be more of the same. The changes must begin at the personal level and with our own lifestyles, because the consumerist way we live is part of the problem.

Thucy - your position is consistent, and has value, but I can't support it because it is also incredibly privileged. Whilst voting for the lesser of two evils truly sucks, and the current system is indeed undemocratic, it remains true that there are people who will be very directly hurt more by one party than by the other. I cannot stand by and look on from a position of ideological purity whilst there is suffering around me that I could have tried to prevent.

Voting on its own will achieve very little, and direct action is necessary. But I do not see any good reason to not do both.

Shamocracy rules! Vote Chumbles! I will do less, I promise; tax less, interfere less and incorporate Diplomacy into the curriculum. (Actually, the latter is a real idea; it teaches negotiation, communication and a basic understanding of the relationship between strategy and tactics.)

@Thucy, first of all, neither voting nor refraining from voting should discourage engaging socially. But voting means making a decision and taking some responsibility and in that way not voting is easier and thus lazy.
Secondly, just because people are stupid doesn't mean it's not democracy, that's what I'm trying to tell you. Yes, propaganda sucks (though its always funny how people in the West, nowadays complain about *propaganda*), but it doesn't imply that the system isn't democratic. It just means your government sucks.
You want to tell me that there are great candidates somewhere in the US but you just cannot find them because they are so shut out?
And for the last time, about the commissioner. You cannot say that if he get's chosen with 51% of 15% turnout then 92,5% of people are against. Not can you say 85% are against. Hell, you cannot even say that those 49% who voted on someone else are against him (unless you employ approval voting). All you can say is that 85% did not express their opinion. And that's all.
So Brand wasn't able to answer this (if I recall correctly, and I honestly won't bare watching this one more time), but how exactly would you imagine changing the system, not by electing new option, not by a violent revolution. How do you think this plays out? You say the government loses legitimacy if turnout is low enough, so just for the sake of your argument let's assume this is true. What happens then?

What happens then?
They vote in a new constitution or new legislation. :P

@yassem

the fact that they didn't vote is an expression of their opinion in and out of itself. They did not care enough in the quality of the election to put their support to one party. You're not asking "why didn't they vote?" but you should be. Maybe for many it's laziness or discrimination, but I'm sure with a large part of '85%' it would be people saying "I don't believe in either side"



and as far as the problem with 'who to elect if no one votes' goes, keep the old President in, (in case of death or resignation, use the VP, then Speaker of the House, etc.) and whichever party the President DOESNT stand for will realize 'we actually have to start trying if we want to exist.' Then we will finally see some quality

"I don't believe in either side" That's why you never vote by party, kids. Vote by issue/ideology. And it doesn't take money to get together a huge-ass petition to send to legislators or other government officials (especially the ones that are supposed to be representing you). Also, a certain major American party (that I know for a fact Thucy disagrees with heavily) would prefer if less people voted because that would mean they were more likely to get power. Way to play into the hands of your rivals, Thucy.

Prado I don't believe a damn thing any of those assholes say. Cruz is an idiot who doesn't know what he's saying, Rubio has a nice story but would be shit awful at foreign policy past Latin America, Clinton looks good at first but she has contradicted herself so many times there is no way she doesn't have alternate agendas. Bush has little education and is relying off of his legacy, and Perry is a homophobe who's greatest educational attribute is a degree in animal science. (So the degree might help him with the Supreme court, but since most politicians don't have souls it won't be of much use)

"That's why you never vote party kids"
wel...
"That's why you never vote... kids"

@otherquotingskills

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_r9K0jEJlk

Just some food for thought:
Male life expectancy in the United States is almost 78 years. If you start voting at 18, you've got 60 years, or FIFTEEN CHANCES to vote for President.

If you refuse to vote, you squander more than 6% of your lifetime influence on Presidential electoral outcomes if you're an American.

Cough, have you heard of primary elections (considering in America we can choose our candidates), cough? Oh, wait, that's just another vote. Full circle. Also, just watched the OP video, and Brand is literally complaining that his MASSIVELY unpopular opinions aren't being implemented on a global scale. Introduce your own candidates if you don't like it. I'm not the biggest fan of the current political system. The major parties favor their own interests over that of the country and campaign costs are seriously high. But I'm not going to whine about it and not vote, or say that the government is illegitimate, or that or claim that we need a new form of governance. You have more power than you think. Your vote is in essence the future of the nation. Choosing not to makes the problem you see far worse.

My decision not to vote is not based on principle alone, it is also a tactic used to undermine the government's authority. Those saying my decision not to vote would go unnoticed, I can equally say your vote if you cast it would go unnoticed, so that argument is null. Our actions are cumulative, we must ensure that our own actions are right.

To be clear I am not against all voting. Ideally we would get to vote far more often and with far more significance than voting for a few co-opted figureheads every year or two. If something deserves my vote, it will get my vote.

The lesser of two evils argument used to drive me to the polls. But the evils committed by all mainstream pokiticians that hurt everyone are so much greater than the small differences that would exist, I cannot justify endorsing corruption through that argument.

Where are the candidates who are planning to end poverty? Where are the candidates that are planning to remove money from politics? Where are the candidates that are planning to end consumerism and stop climate change? I know where - not given a chance by the political establishment.

Anyone who has ever so much as run for student council knows that true outsiders in our system do not stand a chance.

One man, one vote - not one dollar one vote.

Thucy, you're delusional.

Not really, he has a good point. He just draws the wrong conclusion.

@JY, for all I care all those people may be sick of voting and the system, against it, want a rebellion a revolution or more ice-cream. I know one thing - they purposefully disenfranchise themselves, so they have no say any more.
I second Jeff's conclusion. Thucy, I am sorry but I am not going to repeat what I said over and over again. Your argument is just wrong. By not voting you are not expressing anything, or at least not to anyone else but you and people you personally tell you didn't vote.
And Thucy, you make some wild claims (bordering on conspiracy theory) about the condition of nowadays politics in the US, and basically try to support the whole notion of not voting by them. However, in the title of the thread you refer to British politics as well. I wonder, do you think they are just as rotten, and if so do you have any other interesting claims about even more countries? Or is your claim that elections are rigged universal and apply to whole Western world?

@bo, of course he's right to some point. It's bad that politics are so much ruled by money, just like it's bad that the vast majority of people are idiots who fall for it. And that's where his valid point end and his wild fantasy begins.

He makes a number of good points as an extension of that one, though. When he says that nobody is doing anything about climate change, he's right. When he says that nobody is doing anything about poverty, he's right. When he says that people who actually have plans to do these things are excluded from the political process, he's right. When was the last time you saw the Green Party on a major ticket? They don't get on major tickets because the people in power have set it up so that nobody else comes to power. We exist under a two-party system in which each party is inherently different and yet inherently similar at the same time, where nothing gets done, where every good or bad thing that the party in power today does gets repealed within eight years, and where we live in a dependent state under our government. That's not that different than anywhere else.

The only place he goes wrong is saying that it's better to simply not vote. It's a useless, naive way of looking at a number of intricate issues that won't be solved by immaturity. As he has said, people are dependent on the government to act in their favor - with every cut to Medicare, Social Security, education, funding for the sciences, funding for the arts, etc., someone suffers. Someone loses their livelihood, someone loses their house, someone loses their insurance, someone loses their ability to eat, and on and on and on, and that's not okay, but neither is immaturely ignoring the grander issue by forfeiting the minute bit of power he has.

" it is also a tactic used to undermine the government's authority."

Holy smokes the government will be shaking in its boots hahahah.

You don't understand how power actually works and that is why you are completely wasting your time, which is better spent on picking oranges, pleb.