Does Voting Matter

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:23 am

trollster wrote:

johnno23 wrote:

In Asia the many companies you mentioned there are countless fines issued but the fine is so low they do not care. workers in China were to recieve 6 rmb an hour which is less than a dollar but the companies as pizza hut mcdonalds kfc etc are often paying even less as they can get away with it.....
The business model is sound so no argument but often the desire for profit is of little benefit to many.

What is less than a dollar to Chinese people ? $1 an hour equates to $40 a week which wouldn't pay for your petrol to even get to work.

exactly, and a valid point so often overlooked trollster. In many rural districts outside of the cities it is possible to have a very good meal shared by family or 4 workers on a lunch break in a local cafeteria for about 1 dollar per person. To eat at home is far more economic.
But then food here is not as processed as in western society. Often fresh picked or animals slaughtered and sold same day. less of the sell by date here as the supermarkets are not as commonplace but growing faster as income levels increase.
We also forget that Chinese working for international companies in Shanghai Beijing etc who speak excellent English german etc often earn a salary equal to western counterparts so can afford luxury appartments. The people in rural districts often live and work in their own village it is the foxconn's of the world that destroy the basics but thats another debate in another topic already.
one cannot relate what we need and then say what they need. a dollar in oz or a dollar in USA the pound in UK and the euro for europe all equate to the 1 rmb for a chinese in a rural area. it has in its own location a similar value.
Hence my reference to the food chains opening shop here. These are luxury for many chinese but 1 rmb or 1 dollar when used by local people in local shops have a comparable value. That is why I find it obscene that the same food chains here in China and other lands still try to under pay the local employees.
We also forget that in Beijing as an example the subway system gets you to anywhere at 20cts a ticket. one price to enter and exit regardless of distance. Many buses in local areas 10 to 20 cts for the bus ticket.
ipod same price or more expensive here than USA but thats not important to survival so luxury items cost the max. I can live with that.

EDIT: as a quick reply to another post whilst I was typing the above.
Misconception is similar to assumption. it fails.
Gorbatov was such a cool guy yeltsin arrived the scene fell apart and now a hard liner needed to put things back together.
China suffered a terrible blow not in its communism but in its failure to percieve the disastrous results of the cultural revolution that came after. the gang of four have moved on and in a period of many years much of what has happened in recent years was already in progress. You really think that mega cities as Shanghai sprouted like mushrooms.....I did till I came here. I know now that afterchecking records and planning from municipal level government that the very appartment I now live in which was built in 2002 was concieved and planned back in 1962. So much of whats is here today is the result of planning that took place and was VOTED upon (internal government) and passed as planned.
We also should take note that whilst one man shouts freedom we must attempt to understand what would be the real world repurcussions of Chian falling apart at the seams as the russian federation did. former USSR
All I can say is thank goodness most Chinese are proud of their country and want to stay here.
Let us not forget the israeli citizens almost 30 years ago up in arms and shouting that Russia should release its jews to come home........thank goodness Russia said no as to what would really happen if the 11 million exit visas that were requested were fullfilled???? Ugnda only threw out a few million with UK passports..... oh well, johnno raids the fridge as politics are a never ending issue and only need 2 people for 3 points of view.
Wink

:

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:12 am

Clifton L. W. says:
October 14, 2010 at 10:53 am
Individuals born after 1945 missed a great deal of watching America climb out of a depression, fight a world war and charge into the future with renewed hope of a better tomorrow. To individuals like me, discussion of the “haves” and “have-nots” is laughable. In the 1930s you were wealthy if you had a job and could provide a roof over your head and buy food. Soup kitchens were all over the nation and provided the only food some would have and more often than not ran out of food long before they ran out of people. At that time, if you were willing to do labor work, any kind, there was work available. Now, all too often, our young consider menial work beneath them. Most want to be highly paid professionals overnight. Unions and the like can never guarantee work because they don’t create it, all they usually do is make it more difficult for the business enterprises who do hire people to work by trying to control the enterprises. Rather counter productive, isn’t it? I would rather work for $10.00 an hour and work all the time, than $50.00 an hour and work now and then and maybe never! I like to think of this is exercising common sense, a fading asset in too many people.

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:22 am

I got some catching up to do here I see... might sound like I'm drifting off topic but I promise I do this merely to illustrate a point; if you read this, bear with me.

johnno23 wrote:

We hear the voices and read the blogs but software companies do the same. Hostile takeovers and consolidation of user bases and supply of information.

Not to mention "selling out" of indie sites like youtube; imagine the kind of pressure the guy who created youtube was under when establishment media decided they wanted Youtube part of that establishment.

Now youtube is happily (for better or for worse) attached snugly to google accounts.

I used to think it was really sinister... but then I guess I mellowed out a bit and quit obsessing over it so much. Now I almost feel sorry for big businesses. I mean sure they might literally own the whole world in many senses of the world, but look what that world is; the world of advertising. And you gotta admit (at least I sure do) advertising these days lacks all heart whatsoever. Hardees (I think it's them?) commercials for example. Plop down a burger, stuff goes flying everywhere. Wtf? Yuck! Crude example, but I think you get the point. There aren't any more innovative ideas; I'm guessing, this might be ironically partly because the only people who get hired to be imaginative are rich people who got more or less a free ride through college due to being related to someone in big business or their benefactors. Positive feedback loop; whose outcome happens to be negative - or diminishing.

johnno23 wrote:

WTF has this to do with voting I could ask

We already raised the issue that money is the same thing as a vote. That assertion has yet to be challenged. Therefore this is on topic (correct me if I'm wrong by all means).

johnno23 wrote:

It is these companies and their financial powerbases that dictate more and with increasing frequency what politicians and government can and cannot do.

Speaking of money, which is also called trust, trust I believe plays a large role; here's why. Try reading this and then this (the later link comes from the first, so if you read the first really you're already at the second). Those two entries ilustrate all too clearly how well established media sources are trusted, to a very real and scary extent (especially if you use facebook , which I know for a fact many iHers do).

johnno23 wrote:

This is not saying do not vote, it is saying/asking who/what are we voting for when we vote??

As far as I can tell, it's more a vote of confidence in a system which appears to work logically at first glance; when people vote, I don't think they are voting for a politician or political party. They are expressing their willingness to believe order exists somewhere, even if it is beyond their understanding. Personal opinion. I dunno. I'm fairly twisted. Twisted Evil

I'll keep reading this topic, just had to say this while I was thinking about it. Edit: caught up now. Not much to say about China as I know relatively little about China, at least insofar as housing, voting (wow 40 years to get a vote through?), and economics go (other than the stereotypes (for lack of a better word) already covered here).

pomchop wrote:

Individuals born after 1945 missed a great deal of watching America climb out of a depression, fight a world war and charge into the future with renewed hope of a better tomorrow.

While I do still agree with most of the points you mention here (thanks to conditioning as well as the fact that if I didn't agree I'd face arguments at every turn), I must say that people who judge new generations based on their own generation are rather bigoted and narrow-minded. We may be largely unconcerned by the hopes of old, but at least we (some of us at least) are concerned with modern hopes and issues. We don't have the luxury of hindsight as our lives are just beginning.

Don't get me wrong, by no means am I trying to argue with you. I agree. In general most of the new generation has the "rock-star" (get rich fast and have fun doing it) ideal job as the lowest standard. But I've done the menial work both on consumer and industry ends. I'll take high-paying menial work any day on the industry side. Not so much so on the consumer side, as customers tend to treat you like a slave (especially in south-eastern America), and as you might can tell I'm not humble enough to handle too much of that. I've been fired a few times for calling people out on the assholes that they are while in the work environment.

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:06 pm

pomchop wrote:

I would rather work for $10.00 an hour and work all the time, than $50.00 an hour and work now and then and maybe never! I like to think of this is exercising common sense, a fading asset in too many people.

.
No its called the working poor, working all day and living in poverty.

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 6:42 pm

1337 Cyndic wrote:

I must say that people who judge new generations based on their own generation are rather bigoted and narrow-minded.

Cyndic isn't it true that when you have to resort to name calling it means you have lost the argument and must lash out in any way you can.

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:15 pm

pomchop wrote:

Cyndic isn't it true that when you have to resort to name calling it means you have lost the argument and must lash out in any way you can.

You have a point, I did get a bit carried away and immediately regretted it. I commend you for calling me out on it.

However, the very fact that that was the only thing you seem to have focused on proved the final point of my post; that people who support the older generation (or in general, anyone who claims that youth have no right to call out adults) tend to get easily blinded by swear words and construe any offense as a personal attack; thus completely negating the entire argument. Unfortunately those tactics do not work in academia and discussion (though they may work on personal levels or in religion or politics; or on the battlefield). The person you quoted spoke bad of my generation. I merely retaliated; though agreed I did it with less finesse, yet probably more impromptu. +1 Furthermore, I think I got confused with your post, I just realized. I have no idea who Clifton L W is. I first thought it was some public figurehead, then realized it might have been a forum member... googling I cannot find who it is. So my response was out of context to begin with.

Anyway. I did not mean to argue, as I mentioned. I agree, as I said, even if merely because that in the act of disagreeing I would fall under the immediate scruple of any person who might hear said opinion voiced. And to be honest I don't feel like justifying said opinions to begin with; they aren't really mine.

Which brings me back to voting. I have found, in the past, that in general talking face to face with people about popular issues, well over 50% of the time people don't really believe what they think they believe; yet they may vote based on what they think they believe. Is that really voting? Immediately checking an option when only two are presented to you, and no alternatives? Even in this post you are currently reading, I admitted I did not think what I thought I thought I was thinking; I was merely reacting to the environment; namely, your post and my own emotional and logical responses to it. But I'm really stretching it here I feel now; asking if the proper condition for voting exists in human beings.

I honestly don't care if people vote or not. I personally don't. Does it matter? If you think it does. I don't know.

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:26 pm

Pacin 23 says:
He didnt call you any names he expressed an opinion. This is the debates forum, do not enter if you have a tendancy to take things personally. i

I am not taking it personallly. I am merely stating when people resort to name calling it means they lack a valid argument.
Pacino suggesting I should leave the forum can be interpreted as you are taking it personally as I rarely agree with anything you have to say.

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:36 pm

1337Cyndic@ wrote:

I honestly don't care if people vote or not. I personally don't. Does it matter? If you think it does. I don't know.

To be honest I dont think a lot of people are willing to admit the voting system is a little broken. People will vote for what is in their own interests, not what is best for the nation as a whole. Voting is not perfect and I feel it is too simple to ever work. Lumping an opinion into a few categories and having to choose one is not realistic for an honest person.
Voting in itself is not important, its the subject matter that is important and in that context decides if voting matters. I could care less on what people vote when it comes to the color of paint used on the local bus shelter. But whether or not someone can be jailed without trial is another matter.

But here is the truth; voting is a popularity contest. Whether the person you vote for follows through on his promises is up to him/her. Your votes dont mean anything in that respect.

Another thing that was brought up was those under communism and similar circumstances. I may sound like an asshole when I say this but I dont see much of a difference there either. Its just more blatant and a different level of severity.

We are bribed by the media and the media are bribed by government. The government dish out threats by saying how we will destroy the country by voting for opposition. Or how much they promise the earth if they stay in power. Already we have bribery, coercion and threats.

People died for the vote and they deserve everlasting respect for it. But its not a very good system and we need to move on to something better. In other words, improve what they died to give us.

pomchop wrote:

Pacino23 says:
He didnt call you any names he expressed an opinion. This is the debates forum, do not enter if you have a tendancy to take things personally.

I am not taking it personallly. I am merely stating when people resort to name calling it means they lack a valid argument.
Pacino suggesting I should leave the forum can be interpreted as you are taking it personally as I rarely agree with anything you have to say.

What did I take personally? What I am saying to you is debates arent personal but if you are of a sensitive nature then its not the place to be.
Alternatively you can call anyone who posts a strong opinion a name caller and read into things that arent there. Look for a user by the name of thetimesurfer and see how it ended for him.

I dont care if you agree or not with anything I say. But that defensive statement just proved my point.

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:36 pm

1337Cyndic@ wrote:

Is that really voting? Immediately checking an option when only two are presented to you, and no alternatives?

I see this as the primary flaw with American politics, however, not every democracy is a 2 party state. I'm Canadian, we have many partys here, the party currently in power didn't even exist 20 years ago. I do agree the system in USA isn't nearly as effective as ours.

pacino23 wrote:

People died for the vote and they deserve everlasting respect for it. But its not a very good system and we need to move on to something better. In other words, improve what they died to give us.

I hear this kind of thing alot, so im kinda curious; what is this "better" thing you speak of? Confused

I honestly don't see a superior alternative to a healthy democracy.

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:39 pm

1337 Cyndic says:

You have a point, I did get a bit carried away and immediately regretted it. I commend you for calling me out on it.

Cyndic I salute you for your intellectual honesty.

It was not my opinion you were commenting on. I am not that old. I just thought it was an interesting blog and offered a point of view that would add to the topic.

My thought is it only matters when you vote if there is a clear choice in the two canidates and you believe in the issues of one of the canidates. Wnen you vote you are adding momentum to those things you believe in.

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:53 pm

cbilljones wrote:

pacino23 wrote:

People died for the vote and they deserve everlasting respect for it. But its not a very good system and we need to move on to something better. In other words, improve what they died to give us.

I hear this kind of thing alot, so im kinda curious; what is this "better" thing you speak of? Confused

I honestly don't see a superior alternative to a healthy democracy.

There isnt an alternative to a healthy democracy but I dont believe that is what we have. I already mentioned why in a previous post...

Quote:

Gordon Brown was made Prime Minister due to his ability to stab Tony Blair in the back and the guy is total clown shoes. Changing a Prime Minister is quite a big deal but did we get to vote on it or have any say in it at all? No.

In the last election we had a hung parliament. Conservatives had the most votes but because of this ridiculous clause it means that useless prick Nick Clegg from the democrats (who came third) is deputy Prime Minister!! So even though Conservatives won the vote we still have the guys who came last in government because of a nonsensical loophole.

It even happens in America, look how Bush got in first time around via tossed votes. I don't care if people want to look down on my decision, its mine to make. Until I have a reason to have faith in the voting system I won't force myself to choose between 3 assholes who I feel are equally useless.

Politicians have been robbing the shit out of us through expenses on every side during a recession of all times and that was all sides involved.

So to summarize, we have a party who received the most votes has to share government with the party with least votes, someone who became Prime Minister without even a single vote and a government that was robbing us in our worst economic crisis since WW2 but never sacked anyone but would happily jail a regular citizen for fraud if it was the other way round. Those are the people we trust to be fair with our votes by the way.

Does that sound like a healthy democracy?

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:18 pm

cbilljones wrote:

pacino23 wrote:

People died for the vote and they deserve everlasting respect for it. But its not a very good system and we need to move on to something better. In other words, improve what they died to give us.

I hear this kind of thing alot, so im kinda curious; what is this "better" thing you speak of? I honestly don't see a superior alternative to a healthy democracy.

Democracies can be considered mob rule and was frowned upon by America's 'founding fathers'. They chose a constitutional Republic where all rights and power are inherent in the people. They did not want anyone voting on individual freedoms. Unfortunately the U.S. Government has usurpted its power and now Americans are subject to government as in any Marxist or Socialistic society. Many choose redistribution of wealth over individual freedom and vote that way. President Obama has given Americans a clear choice of his ideology of Marxism and Socialism versus free markets and individual freedoms. People will be voting in the masses the being of November whether to accept Obama Marxism or return to a Constitutional Republic. As it stands right now U.S. Government has effectually made the U.S. Constituion almost worthless.

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:39 pm

the battleground of politics has become a stalemate in many democratic countries and the reason I do believe is the financial power and influence of economic power house companies.
There is so little passion in politics these days. So little to make the heart pump and ignite a feeling of pride to encourage the people to move forward toward a common goal.
The stalemate is balance and the major businesses want to maintain a status quo so that any outcome is of insignificant risk to their margins and ability to make profit.
I do believe that a multi party system should offer better representation but when government is centralized then the representation is diminished. Democracy whilst better than most alternatives has a simple flaw in that winner takes all and has the power to decide for all. I can understand the mechanics of the system but in the UK I have witnessed on countless occasions where an entire county has voted for party 1 but party 2 is in power the central government dictates the law and direction to be followed.
Thats the system. This is somewhat addressed in USA where there is state law and federal law but it should run deeper.
The days of feudalism are over in the western world and the warring states as such are in the past. The value of local government has been eradicated when I feel it should have been returned.
In much of the western world the move to centralize everything was driven by cost. The end result in my mind is similar to communism. The staus quo has ensured that a smaller group debate over everything and have a bureaucracy of unmanageable complexity to handle the local issue and allocation of resources. By centralizing the ability of local government has lost its ability to react and deal with its local issues competently.
Central government in my opinion should handle the bigger issues of how we should react as a country to the world issues and set out a path that is in the general interests of all. Local government should have more power and not less which has been the scenario since the the 50's.
As a child the world had less specialists, but the police were local and knew everyone. The locally elected would be at the weekly townhall meetings where people would participate and be made aware of the past week and the agenda for the coming week. A lot closer to its people and its people were involved. Now its the press that inform us of what has transpired and guess about the coming week. The participation has been taken from us and in its place the media entertainment of hunting down the latest scandal of who slept with whom is our new political participation.
maybe we should vote upon who had the best crumpet on the side. Wink

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 9:23 pm

Actually Pacino much of what you say, more or less, is part of what the U.S. Constitution is about. Unfortunitely the Federal government has taken control over the people, ignore its Constitutional restrictions, and solidified its power in Washington D.C. Everyone talks about the evils or Corporations but government workers do quite well in pay, benefits, and power when government takes control over the private sector. Some Corporations fight aginst this government power grab. Governments also
use corporations to their advantage and require the larger ones to have lobbyist that donate money to campaigns just so government will be fair in their decisions when dealing with business. There are Corporation who use their power to control but their are many who are just trying to survive and governments can and often do ruin busnesses.

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 9:38 pm

pomchop wrote:

Actually Pacino much of what you say, more or less, is part of what the U.S. Constitution is about. Unfortunitely the Federal government has taken control over the people, ignore its Constitutional restrictions, and solidified its power in Washington D.C. Everyone talks about the evils or Corporations but government workers do quite well in pay, benefits, and power when government takes control over the private sector. Some Corporations fight aginst this government power grab. Governments also
use corporations to their advantage and require the larger ones to have lobbyist that donate money to campaigns just so government will be fair in their decisions when dealing with business. There are Corporation who use their power to control but their are many who are just trying to survive and governments can and often do ruin busnesses.

all comes back to a trinity!
TRUST POWER MONEY 3 parts of the same. sound familiar.....read it on a dollar bill I think Shocked

Anyways its all about getting the best deals, and dependent upon which side of a fence people are they are confronted with business issues and the results of getting more for less.