babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Yes but this example is about the evolution of democracy into an established order. I mean I suppose one could consider it in a linear fashion that by reversing the process that would lead to some change (which is debatable because social systems don't behave that way) but to what end exactly?
You say change? Again what change? Onces the order is broken down, then what do you propose to do or demand in order to be reenfranchised? What new order are you after? A particular system, 'socialism', communinism, something or otherinism that we haven't thought of yet?
And Harper believes that those who did not vote are happy with his rule and have great confidence in the system! He has as much evidence as Cueball has for his view.
I believe lots of people do not vote because they are too darn lazy or too confused by attack ads. (Lots of hairy chested alpha male liberals could not bring themselves to go to the voting station and vote for dion's party cos of his weak chin and slumping sholders).
Non voters can be defined as younger and poorer than voters (on average).
So another way to improve the statistics is to raise the voting age.
The order has broken down.
Incrementally over time, the processes that were put in place to ensure that the continuing control of the system was not in the hands of the poorest segments of society, by putting concrete economic blockades in the way of their participation, has acted to disenfranchise them, while maintaining the appearance of their being enfranchised.
[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Oh so it's already at your end goal? Didn't you say it was *going* to happen? Slightly confusing...okay, so what is the change you talked about the end goal leading too and where is it coming from exactly?
Now we get right down to the crux of the matter. You don't want to change the system to restore people's confidence in the system, you only want to improve the turnout statistics so it appears that people are confident in the system, and it dies not matter to you if it is by forcing people to vote or not letting them vote.
The probability that my vote will elect an anti-capitalist party that I can believe in is exactly zero.
No where other than the renovation of the process. The goal is a fair and democratic society, where economic factors do not enter into the issue of ones enfranchisement as an unreasonable block against political power. What else?
A society, whatever you want to call it "capitalist", "socialist", "democratic" or whatever are determined not by the ideologies that the purport to hold, but the ideologies as expressed in the proccess of their functioning.
An abstract "idealized" ideology acts as nothing more than a tool of critical analysis by which one measures the state of the society, against its ideals. In this case the idea that Canada can lay claim to the title of a "democratic" society falls remarkably short of its "objective" goals.
Other issues such as the proper management of the wealth of people, and a persons relationship to the state and capital, can not truly be dealt with until all persons are enfranchized within the decision making process. That becomes the work in progress. But enfranchisment does not merely mean the ability to vote, but also that ones vote has meaning.
[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Sorry Cueball, that's all fancy sounding and lurvly and feel good and all that, but really it doesn't answer my question as to what exactly you are attempting to accomplish by large numbers of people not voting and how that change is actually supposed to happen.
You say here well a democratic society of course.
I'm asking how exactly by not voting that these powers that be are suddenly going to freak out because they don't have a mandate, and figure out the reason for the supposed lack of that mandate, and in turn figure what you want? How will they know? What change beyond just going to ballot box is going to make that actually happen? Where is your voice? How are you going to tell them? What are the tactics for accomplishing that change if it isn't voting?
Writing on message boards like babble? Taking to the streets? Civic or community organizations? Letters to the editor? How exactly?
I'd say it pretty clear that elements in all of the official factions are highly concerned about the issue of non-voting, and non-voters, because more than 50 percent of the Canadian people do not recognize their political authority.
[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Not the ends justify the means, the ends are the means.
Wether or not North American society has ever been strictly egalitarean is not the issue, because obviously it has not. But the fact is, the democratic system which gave this society its ability to evolve has been deeply corroded, and it is far less functional as a vehicle for egalitarean public political processes than it was 50 or even 20 years ago.
Um no. I'm not freaking out and I don't think that others are freaking out, but it's interesting that you equate the posters here as the 'powers that be' of your theory I was specially asking questions about as well as how you are perceiving it.
You still haven't answered my question on how exactly you think this 'change' is going to occur. Tactics...
Though I suppose I can infer from the non-answer yet again and you pointing to this thread as an example of the fallout that talking on a board like babble must be one of them.
I don't think Canadians are as revolutionarily minded as you think they are(well, at least not 50% of them)
Politics is boring. Discussing political topics is fun but when you get down to the nuts and bolts of getting informed and/or getting someone elected(door knocking, canvassing, volunteering your time in order to show people how to door knock and canvass) the process is pretty
tedious. it's much more interesting to watch TV or go camping or play with your kids. It a rare person who attends all of the meetings and is truly comitted.
[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
Do I really have to point to all the threads on this board where proportional representation, is directly indicated as a means of increasing voter interest?
And as far as the relationship to this board, and those on it. Sure, the powers that be are on this board. I know you don't like to think of the NDP as being one of the factions of the powers that be, but as you can see my analysis and yours, are not congruent. I indeed do see the entrenched power of the state operating on this board, and we know for a fact that many party activist post regularly on this board, and even Jack Layton's campaign manager too.
But yeah, you are definetly with the establishement, and one of its agents and one of its public defenders. The fact that the NDP poses itself as in opposition to power, is in fact, in my view, its primary function in the system, because it acts as a sop for public discontent, which it diffuses by displaceing of a huge amount of political energy, and money, into the totally vein act of getting people to put checks marks on little pieces of paper that give the state its legitimacy.
How much is the NDP paid for each check mark it aquires?
As for venues and modes of action, there are many. And this is one of them. Here I am.
[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Duceppe: "In Canada there are two official languages, English and simultaneous translation."
He also wants to break up the country which is probably a step in the right direction.
ETA: I didn't call you a bastard.
[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
With all the people you know, with all the struggles you've been involved in, you could have chosen a far more effective way to spread the anarchist gospel.
Very passive agressive. I disputed the "civics" lecture in detail. Can't dispute the arguement, so whip out the ol' insult.
Whatever happened to this Fidel, from last night:
Is that what it is? If so, the explanations makes more sense now.
eta: I should clarify. Don't mean that in a snarky way as a put down, just that knowing that (if true) helps me understand better.
[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: ElizaQ ]
Firstly, I would like you to clarify is how you can genuinely support a political process that is overtly skewed too maintaining the status quo, in favour of the interests of the well-to-do? On the elections Canada web site is says that the object is to create a "level playing field". However on the very same page is explicitly excludes people who can't afford to throw $1000 at the government every 4 years for the privilege of becoming a candidate. This biases the sytem against the poorer members of society and relegates them to the status of volunteer foot soldiers, or mere voters, for the established factions who are paid handsomely for each vote they aquire.
Secondly can you also clarify for me why such a system does not progessively shift the agenda of the entire system (including the quasi-independent subsidiary state organs we like to call "political parties") away from those items that might benefit the interests of those who are relegated to the status of mere voters and foot soldies because it is economically unfeasible for them to field effective competition to the existing state funded (and therefore controlled) political organs?
[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
For some, yes it is. But you can't convince me that 50% of Canadians have the same agenda that you do.
This is Canada. The last time Canadians elected a truly radical government(Tommy, where the hell are ya!?) there was a depression. We are a very centrist country, politics just isn't a part of our culture. We don't have 200 years of socialism behind us like france, or a dictatorship we are desperatly trying to forget like Spain and Germany, and with all the other things Canadians can do with there time, what would motivate them to listen to our leaders talk about politics?
When it comes right down to it, radical leaders(the Hugo Chavezes and Lapasionarias of this world) only come to power in times of desperation.
The NDP is in bad shape. We have a grey man in a grey suit for leader whose wife marches for Israel and dosen't apologize for her actions. The party is trying to attract middle and upper middle class voters while ignoring the fact that those two groups are already represented by the Libs and the Cons.
There is possibility that the party can be saved, but finding a Jimmy Maxton to lead the NDP in a country as dull and prosperous as Canada, may be a challenge.
As for being part of the esablishment, Yes, partially I am. But we're all stuck in the same neo liberal morass, so don't get too high and mighty.
[ 09 November 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
[ 09 November 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
Your statement only proves (with a probability of one) that you don't deserve your wish for an anti-capitalist party to be realized.
Benoit: "To force people to go to the poll, one has to find a good counter-argument to the following argument (often expressed by non-voters): the probability that my vote will change the outcome of the election is nil. The best counter-argument is: if everyone were thinking like that, politics would not be democratic anymore."
No. That's an argument you would use if you wanted to persuade people to go to the polls, because when you persuade, you use arguments. That's not what you're advocating. You want to force them to the polls, which requires no arguments. Just the rule of law, which, as Cueball has pointed out, only has validity with the threat of violence. The whole point of democracy is to substitute persuasion for violence as an agent of social change. You want to undermine that by using violence to control how people use their vote.
Benoit: "Being forced to go to the poll is entirely compatible with being free to spoil YOUR ballot."
It isn't, actually, because it's not MY ballot if you get to tell me how to use it. If something is mine, I can do what I like with it. I can smash it, throw it away, whatever. Imagine someone gave you a car, and said, you can drive it wherever you like, but you can't sell it or wreck it. It's not really your car, is it? You have limited control of it, but obviously not ownership. It's on loan from whoever this person is who has the authority to tell you you're not allowed to sell it. That authority really makes it his car, whether or not you're driving it. It's the same authority that you want to have over my democratic franchise, telling me what I can and can't do with it.
I would prefer an honest fascist to someone like you who wants to "save" democracy with his iron fist.
The home owner who I am currently working for was born in switzerland. but emigrated as a child. He wished to keep his swiss citizenship when he grew up. So he had to do his time in the swiss army. (I think all swiss males still have to do army time).
I hope that might put compulsory voting in perspective for some people. I did not like the idea myself at first but I worked with an australian who was completely in favour of it. If you are allowed to spoil your vote and have the spoil registered as a spoil, I see no problems at all with it.
- Deliberative democracy is only about the persuading force of the better argument.
- Giving up your vote would be like voluntarily enslaving yourself to another person.
Cueball, if you were to run as an NDP candidate and won the nomination, the NDP riding association pays the 1000 dollars, and not you personally. I just wanted to clear that up for you. So yes, people within the NDP can run who are economically challenged, and yes, they do win nomination races.