Next election should I just observe polling results and then stay home ?

To simply say “vote and shut up” is not an argument. It’s placing a great deal of faith in a man-made system. You simply assume that democracy is good, that the only other option is dictatorship.

No, I don’t like Democracy, it’s nothing but mob rule and has there is nothing positive about it. It is incompatible with liberty and incompatible with real American values.

If you don’t like the candidates, run for office or promote other candidates.

We also can’t write every initiative to where it fits everyone’s specifications.

To top it off, someone jumps on saying congresspeople need 50%+ eligible voters to cast ballots for anyone to get elected. This statement could only come from someone who knows that less than 50% voted in the recent election. This is a great approach. Let’s all promote “not voting” and tell congresspeople nobody can enter office because we didn’t vote.

Do you folks like democracy, or should we switch to a dictatorship. In a dictatorship, reasons for not voting could be the least of our worries. I don’t praise the U.S. or it’s politics, but I can’t think of anywhere else I would rather live.

Second, if voting is narrower than the margin of error then it probably doesn’t matter which side wins, each side having made an equally logical and/or valid argument. If all elections required a super majority . . . .

Third, elections would be more honest if not secret. I propose a national publiclist of registered voters with addresses and all votes be posted on the WEB.

Ludwig von Mises: “Action is, by definition, always rational. One is unwarranted in calling goals of action irrational simply because they are not worth striving for from the point of view of ones own valuations.” – Epistemological Problems of Economics

Those who say that one shouldn’t complain if one does not vote have it the exactly the wrong way around. By taking part in the farce they supported it. The politician can rightfully claim to them, “You had your say already. You voted. That’s your contribution as agreed. Now you do as I legislate. That’s my contribution, to legislate on you. I was elected to power remember. That was part of our deal. Now shut up and obey.”

As a non-voter it always amuses me how people fall for this voting of silliness.

Sione

Not to give away too much, but “Seeing” seems to be rather pro-market, anti-state (no doubt about it being anti-state). I still say give it a read, and then maybe post back here. Try “Blindness” first, then “Seeing.” The fiction is aces, makes hacks like Rand look like puke.

That’s not quite true. The marginal vote is very valuable up to a 50% + 1 margin, and beyond that it is worthless. This means that in the electoral system there are only two stable factions, the left wing and the right wing, who can aspire to earn enough votes to take power. In order to do this, they offer privileges to electors in exchange for their support at the polls. For example, last election the Republicans “promised” a gay marriage constitutional ban, thus ensuring that the religious voters would support them en masse. It works the same way in any country.

Because democracy is always this process of exchanging privileges for votes, and because these privileges necessarily involve harming one group of people to benefit another, it is incompatible with liberty.

A major problem with voting is that the value of the marginal vote is nothing. It is all or nothing. The market does not work that way. Of course it is likely a bigger problem that costs are externalized, but that’s really an issue of government rather than really voting per se.

If you ever decide to pick up a copy, try to read Saramago’s earlier novel “Blindness” first (“Seeing” is sort of a sequel).

I participated in the public input process for the post 2000 redistricting in Florida. I submitted for consideration a state House, state Senate and Congressional redistricting package. In the process of drafting my plans, and using the official redistricting software to study other plans, and the final adopted districts, I gained a very keen understanding of this process and an expertise in just how damaging it can be.

I will use my own Congressional District 24 of Florida as an example. The current incumbent is Republican Tom Feeney. He was Speaker of the Florida State House and had this Congressional District custom drawn for his own occupancy. It was drawn to include high income areas and exclude low income and minority areas. It included all his previous voters from his state house district. Basically, he elected himself to Congress and has a free pass into office every two years. As a “voter”, I am just performing a pro forma duty. I am not influencing any election. His victory was guaranteed when that district was drawn. Yes, he theoretically could be taken down in a party primary, but that only happens in very unusual cases, such as Cynthia McKinney and those are few and far between.

Some solutions. In the 2010 reapportionment, raise the total membership of the U.S. House of Representatives to 677, which represents the cube root of the expected population in the 2010 Census. Each state would choose its delegations at large, using a party list system. Parties would be seated in proportion to their raw vote. Or states could be divided into a number of multimember districts, using some sort of multi-member preference voting.

Above all, we must dump single member districts and increase the total size of the U.S. House.

I am not saying you should vote, maybe your first point was poorly written, but it is equally flawed logic.

Citizens should at least insist on a basic ‘Quorum’ rule for Congressional elections — nobody is elected to office unless 50%+ of the ‘eligible’ voters cast a ballot at the polls.

Congress requires a 50% quorum for all legislation (… and a two-thirds quorum for serious stuff). Our Congressmen wouldn’t dream of operating without a quorum-rule …. and risking key decisions to a minority.
But they’re quite happy to assume their congressional seats with only a minority citizen vote.

Few if any Congressmen or Presidents have ever taken office with a majority vote of the ‘eligible’ electorate.

Doesn’t ‘Democracy’ require majority votes ??