Another Bloody Election Day

in #electionlast year

It's the first Tuesday in November, so even though it's an odd-numbered year with no big federal elections, there are state and local offices, ballot initiatives, and other matters up for vote across much of the US today. It's another bloody Election Day. and I'm not trying to use a British vulgarity here. Beneath the veneer of ritual, I see violence.

I have written before about politics and nationalism as a civil religion. It should come as no surprise that if questioning the legitimacy of the results of an election like the protesters did on January 6th is considered treason, then questioning the validity of the electoral system before the election is downright heretical. We have all been raised to believe democracy is how we ensure the consent of the governed, but this does not withstand scrutiny. As tensions rise, it is more and more frowned upon to question the system underpinning everything. I have written about my concerns about elections and democracy before. I am not treading new ground here. To quote myself from last year,

I am not a fan of elections in general. It's a political system built on the bandwagon fallacy. A popularity contest means the people who promise to redistribute political plunder most tend to get the most support from a gullible and greedy populace. People who don't trust their neighbors to govern themselves suddenly imagine those same neighbors have the wisdom to select a ruler for everyone? That doesn't really make sense.

The idea of democratic representation collapses under the slightest scrutiny, too. There is not even an agent/principal relationship between the election winners and those who voted for them, to say nothing of voters who chose someone less popular, or those who abstained from voting altogether out of either principle or sloth.

The old saying goes, "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain." As many have said before, that's backwards. If you don't vote, you have every right to complain. You didn't play the game, so why should you be subjected to its outcome? If you did vote, you wanted a government, and regardless of the outcome, you're going to get one good and hard. Just have the decency to leave us out of it, please.

Politicians promise us a secularized salvation from war and debt and social conflict. The common question today is, "did you vote?" Mine is, "should you vote?" Most people are not ready for such questions. Why not?

  • We all know campaign promises aren't worth a tinker's damn, right? The "lying politician" is an ancient stereotype for good reason.

  • Why does the ignorant vote carry as much weight as that of the expert?

  • Can a system which claims to protect minorities operate by majority vote? As I have said before, elections are just a formalized bandwagon fallacy.

  • How are people "represented" by politicians for whom they did not vote, or explicitly voted against? I supported neither Biden nor Trump in 2020. Neither could be my agent.

  • Do we have a right to impose our political preferences upon our neighbors? We agree nowadays not to impose our denominational tenets, so why our political tenets?

We have all been taught that voting is a right, but I contend that in the civil religion of the modern democratic process, voting is a rite. Those who refuse are deemed sinners who fall short of their duty to God society. Those whose candidate lose are redeemed by participation, and get a sticker as a consolation prize. Those whose candidates win have no accountability for the actions of the elected despite claiming responsibility for it. Does this really add up?

Every political act can be whittled down to, "comply or die." If democracy works as advertised, voting is direct participation in violence. Blood is on your hands if you vote for a politician who then goes to war, or even just maintains the status quo of corrupt laws and courts enforced by police brutality. If you disagree, please comment. Just don't parrot some middle-school civics lesson you imagine I never saw before.

dizzy d20 128.png

HIVE | PeakD | Ecency

If you're not on Hive yet, I invite you to join through PeakD. If you use my referral link, I'll even delegate some Hive Power to help you get started.

Sort:  

In Pakistan, February 2024 is the date of elections and we will see that if they don't release Imran Khan from jail within these days, there will be many problems here. We have seen one thing that when someone He goes to the top of the post he never listens to people and doesn't fulfill all his promises he just goes to make his own money.

That sounds similar to what is being attempted against Trump here in the US. I don't think Trump is a good guy, and I oppose a lot of his policies, but the legal processes being used against him look more like political targeting of an opponent than pursuit of justice.

Of course people like this we have also seen everywhere that they don't like Trump but still he goes on to become Prime Minister and President because of blowing his own money.

I feel you, no point in voting here anyways. The ANC will end up winning and they'll just dig deeper into whatever is still left in the cookie jar 😂😂😂

Aww, Happy Election Day to you too JT! You have my vote for you to get your disgruntled carcass to trivia night so we can democratically oppress the local citizenry with our unfair advantage in general knowledge. Won't it be fun!?!

On a more serious note, you and I have had many a conversation in this realm, and like with all things human, there are no easy, nor straightforward answers. I sometimes think about our library district in regards to how voting can and cannot work. We fleshbags are imperfect beings, but sometimes we tend to get things almost right, and governance can be one of those things if it is voluntary.

One of the things I like about the HIVE community is its voluntary nature. Join, decline, leave, or fork the blockchain, it's all up to you. The closest thing we have to a zero-sum game is the daily reward pool. It does get abused, but our decentralized community has found ways to address that. Some of these enforcers cause problems, too, but we are working on that as well.

I think you have some valid points but I do not think there is a strong connection between voting and participation in violence. It might be a good topic to debate with a hardcore pacifist like a Quaker that also votes.

About the futility of voting against the mob/majority: Although a vote cast for the losing candidate has no direct effect, there is a feedback effect for the politicians and political operatives that represent the mob. If there is more competition, they tend to govern with a more compromising approach.

If voting is participatory government (common opinion) and if government is a territorial monopoly in violence (common political science definition) then it follows that voting is participation in violence.

I am aware that contrarian voting is a frequently suggested strategy to signal disapproval, but I am not convinced it is effective, and the lower the participation rate overall, the harder it is for those in power to claim a public mandate, especially when the majority of eligible voters did not participate at all.

Practical reality seems to be that voting is part popularity contest for the unofficial aristocracy, part scoreboard for propagandist and influence peddlers. Some voters are true believers, and that's not a bad thing. But if it wasn't obvious before, the Bernie Sanders 2016 DNC scandal has made it obvious to people that pay a shred of attention. So I still think there is a firewall of voting as a plebeian and giving active consent to violence. Also our opinions differ on the topic of violence. It's a tool in a toolbox, often necessary to counter violence, but obviously is overused.

I suppose my language could use more precision, despite the delightful alliteration of "voting is violence." There is a distinction to be drawn between initiating coercive force against peaceful people, the use of proportionate force against someone who initiates aggression.

I know a lot of folks recommend "defensive voting" on local ballot initiatives where a single vote is not statistically equivalent to zero. However, voting for a politician who has promised a given policy means voting for the violence necessary to fund and enforce it, if voting works as we were all taught in civics class.

Bernie in 2016, Ron Paul in 2012, and so many other people have been crushed by the party imposing their insiders against any internal disruptive elements. The duopoly is a self-perpetuating machine as it divides and conquers.

Greetings. Elections in much of the world and in the United States have long been a popularity contest or a competition of who can spend more money. The electoral situation here is a farce, so the feeling of not voting is different; it's a form of protest or rebellion against the system. Personally, I consider that going out to vote is continuing with the game they have imposed, regardless of the political model.

When those types of issues and experience keeps pumping up, it will create political apathy among citizens

Voting here is even worse. There are always a lot of killings on election day so people are always scared to go out to vote
It is really scary and sad to lose your life because of election

Shared on X

The article I mentioned in my last comment is now finished. Feel free to check it out, but I warn you, it's a wee bit long (3652 words).

We agree nowadays not to impose our denominational tenets

Have we? The current House Speaker and his ilk sure seem intent on imposing their brand of Christianity on the rest of us.

Why does the ignorant vote carry as much weight as that of the expert?

It’s a little late to mess with one person, one vote. Property qualifications and poll taxes have already been tried. And who exactly decides who is an expert on political decisions?

People love to conflate religious views with political views. His religion is politics, not Christ. You know a tree by its fruit.

Monarchy was also one person, one vote no one dared mess with. I am challenging the very premise of voting as legitimate means for society to handle matters today just as philosophers challenged the legitimacy of monarchy in centuries past.

If the political class had its way, it would declare itself the be-all and end-all on expertise despite all the damage they have wrought in the past couple decades alone, to say nothing of history as a whole.

Hey, I know it's been ten months since you wrote this, but I just wanted to let you know that the Varyag will reference this comment in an article published tomorrow on Substack. For context, one of my friends asked me to write an article about Answers in Genesis, and as it turns out, Johnson is connected with AiG in some questionable ways.

I fixed a typo, then.

Excellent! There will be a follow-up article in a week, which also ties into this idea of politics as religion, since I managed to royally piss off John Pavlovitz when I called him out on exactly that.

His religion is politics, not Christ.

Granted that the historical person known as Jesus would probably have been appalled by the current incarnation of Christian Nationalism, Mike Johnson lives and breathes that ideology.

The Varyag is currently writing an article addressing the Congenial Idiot on the subject of democracy as well, since he's written two long-winded articles explaining that he has no idea what the word even means. I'll let you know when it's finished, you might enjoy it. Here's an excerpt:

Plato was correct that democracy can lead directly to tyranny. The highest form of democracy is dictatorship. No, I didn't make that up, Karl Marx made that up, and the mental gymnastics are disturbingly easy to follow. “Dictator” is the Latin word for “speaker,” and it is the exact title that Gaius Julius Caesar held; he was “speaker for the Roman people” in a senate that hadn’t cared about public will for quite some time. This is why so many dictatorships call themselves “democratic”; when the “people’s speaker” has absolute power, then “the people are empowered.” Which people, however, are never specified. I’m not the only one to point this out, by the way. Anyone who lives in Canada knows that when Justin Trudeau Castro says “our democracy,” he literally means his democracy, because he can’t have public will interfering with the collective will of his cronies in the political class. By the way, this is why the phrase "people's republic" is understood, even in the US, to mean "police state," and it is sometimes applied derisively to certain American jurisdictions, e.g. the "People's Republic of Maryland." Generally speaking, the more collectivist the name, the more authoritarian the system, such as the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" or the "National Socialist German Workers' Party."