I tend to agree with George Carlin when he said that it is actually the people who don't vote that have more of a right to complain loudly about the outcome. After all, it is the people that vote that put those people into office in the first place!

And inevitably when I say something like that, the counter-argument is of course "well you could have voted to prevent that person from getting into office", but what if the other person is just as bad or worse? Voting to keep someone out of office is worse than voting for the lesser of two evils.

End the career politicians. Put someone up that's worth voting for. I would love to see a near-zero voter turnout as a way to tell our government, through action, that we all have a vote of no confidence in their ability to lead. Perhaps then someone would stand-up and take notice.

A 100 percent turnout of spoiled ballots would work just as well don't you think? :-)

---

We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Apart from pain. And maybe humiliation. And obviously death. And failure. But apart from fear, pain and humiliation, failure and the unknown and death - we have nothing to fear. Who’s with me?

I tend to agree with George Carlin when he said that it is actually the people who don't vote that have more of a right to complain loudly about the outcome. After all, it is the people that vote that put those people into office in the first place!

So do I.
It's called the American Dream but you have to sleep to belive it.
PG 18+ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

I tend to agree with George Carlin when he said that it is actually the people who don't vote that have more of a right to complain loudly about the outcome. After all, it is the people that vote that put those people into office in the first place!

And inevitably when I say something like that, the counter-argument is of course "well you could have voted to prevent that person from getting into office", but what if the other person is just as bad or worse? Voting to keep someone out of office is worse than voting for the lesser of two evils.

End the career politicians. Put someone up that's worth voting for. I would love to see a near-zero voter turnout as a way to tell our government, through action, that we all have a vote of no confidence in their ability to lead. Perhaps then someone would stand-up and take notice.

The problem with your system ozzie is if only 1000 vote and they all vote for the same people that's it all over .

But if you have a compulsary voting system and every one or even 1/3 of the voters vote Donkey vote as it's called (writing a obseen phrase across the ballot paper and choicing nobody ) then you have a situation where people have voted but there is no clear winner . As you can't win 51% if 30% have voted Donkey votes .

The poliy's don't like it when there is a high Donkey vote it means they are on notice and will lose the next election if they don't improve .

Also if the Donkey vote is to high 30% there will be a new election and new candidates will have to stand .

Not voting in your system means NOTHING and can and is manipulated and can backfire on the voters .

---

lets put it this way .

There are more Muslims in Egypt than there are Christians and the Muslims brother hood had more people supporting it .

When they where kick out and new elections held what did the Brotherhood do ?

They choose to not take part in the vote and who won it mmm the Christians .

No vote then they weren't counted . there has been other country's where the people have chosen to do same and they always lose .

Yes i understand there are other factors but it still shows that not voting is a useless thing to do .

You can't change the system if your not part of it .

---

I tend to agree with George Carlin when he said that it is actually the people who don't vote that have more of a right to complain loudly about the outcome. After all, it is the people that vote that put those people into office in the first place!

And inevitably when I say something like that, the counter-argument is of course "well you could have voted to prevent that person from getting into office", but what if the other person is just as bad or worse? Voting to keep someone out of office is worse than voting for the lesser of two evils.

End the career politicians. Put someone up that's worth voting for. I would love to see a near-zero voter turnout as a way to tell our government, through action, that we all have a vote of no confidence in their ability to lead. Perhaps then someone would stand-up and take notice.

A 100 percent turnout of spoiled ballots would work just as well don't you think? :-)

No, I don't think it would work just as well. At least not for the US Presidency where write-in votes aren't tallied.

You can't change the system if your not part of it .

You can't change the system even if you are a part of it, realistically.

You can't change the system if your not part of it .

You can't change the system even if you are a part of it, realistically.

If your name is George Soros ...

---

You can't change the system if your not part of it .


You can't change the system even if you are a part of it, realistically.

If your name is George Soros ...

You mean the C.E.O of The United States of Soros other wise called GOD well he does what he want's

---

You can't change the system if your not part of it .


You can't change the system even if you are a part of it, realistically.

If your name is George Soros ...

You mean the C.E.O of The United States of Soros other wise called GOD well he does what he want's

George Soros is the man who crashed our economy in 1992.
When asked why, he said "because I could"....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_banking_rescue

You can't change the system if your not part of it .

You can't change the system even if you are a part of it, realistically.

If your name is George Soros ...

... or various other 1%'ers that can afford to buy politicians. So long as the system remains broken, the 99% have no say in political affairs other than the illusion that their political activism can make a change. Religion works on the same false hope premise to make the common man feel like they have some semblance of control when in fact they do not.

... or various other 1%'ers that can afford to buy politicians. So long as the system remains broken, the 99% have no say in political affairs other than the illusion that their political activism can make a change. Religion works on the same false hope premise to make the common man feel like they have some semblance of control when in fact they do not.

That is not entirely true. The 1% can only buy their politicians as long as the 99% shrugs their shoulders and continues to be apathetic.

In the end, even if you think its just a formality, politicians need to get the most votes. And while money can help you run a slick campaign, no slick campaign can win you the elections if you have pissed off your voter base. The problem is that no politician ever really gets taken down on what they have done by the time they run for office again. Everything that happened a few months ago is old news, so unless you do something stupid a few months before the elections, you can get away with a lot of awful things and no one will remember it. The media of course is complicit in this, as they blatantly refuse to ask any tough questions in fear of getting blacklisted by the campaign managers. So all they do is regurgitate pre approved sound bytes and election slogans. Even those debates are a farce. Just listen to what they are all saying, its all politispeech but no moderator (or any other candidate) ever goes into detail, asks for concrete plans or proposals.

In any case, if voters wanted, they could drive the influence of big money out of politics. But it would require constant vigilance by voters, they have to know exactly what their representative is doing, and they must make it known immediately the moment they start doing something you think is unacceptable. It forces politicians to either defend their actions to their voters, explaining to them why they believe that what they did is in the voters best interest and try to convince voters that what they did was the right thing, or it forces them to back down. And it can work! Just think back about SOPA and PIPA, both of them were stopped because voters made it absolutely clear to their representatives that they would be out of a job if they went through with those acts.

A 100 percent turnout of spoiled ballots would work just as well don't you think? :-)

No, I don't think it would work just as well. At least not for the US Presidency where write-in votes aren't tallied.

Fair enough :-)

---

We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Apart from pain. And maybe humiliation. And obviously death. And failure. But apart from fear, pain and humiliation, failure and the unknown and death - we have nothing to fear. Who’s with me?

Remarks by President Obama on the Voting Rights Act. While you're at it take a look at the the comments. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-voting-rights-new-york-times_55cb507ae4b0f1cbf1e6e0e0?kvcommref=mostpopular

---

I don't buy computers, I build them!!

While you're at it take a look at the the comments. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-voting-rights-new-york-times_55cb507ae4b0f1cbf1e6e0e0?kvcommref=mostpopular

I like this one

B Mis Lee · Emperor at Steelmailboxusa.com
Voting rights are important.
People in America think democracy is a given by Constitution.

Democracy is an living enviroment, which need constant care and protection from corruption, mass manipulations, apathy and totality !

In red red Texas
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/02/eight-texas-counties-list-more-voters-than-residents/

---