You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: A mathematical explanation how voting third party in 2016 is the only vote that counts
"If only 10% of the people (as an example) actually voted for the "rulers" then why would the other 90% obey whatever the rulers decree?"
Three answers... weapons, prisons, and belief in their authority. I'm not convinced that voting is why people believe in their authority so much as the fact that they can and will come after you in the right circumstances. There's a huge difference in 90% of people not voting due to apathy vs. 90% of people not voting due to lack of belief in authority.
Possibly, but again, if someone comes to a house with a gun to throw them in a cage because they didn't give a portion of their income to rulers, and only 10% percent of the population agrees with the validity of that person's "authority" to cage them, don't you think we'd see more people with guns saying, "Uh, nope. Nice try, but you have no authority here. I'll freely defend myself against you."?
The numbers I'm talking about would, I think, have a direct impact on the "belief in their authority" concept. I wrote about that here as well.
Yes, people may come after you, but there's also this "social contract" idea and the "consent of the governed" that holds it all together. We've seen numerous examples throughout history where humans stood up against obvious injustice, even to the point of personal harm, when their position is the morally correct one.
"and only 10% percent of the population agrees with the validity of that person's "authority" to cage them, don't you think we'd see more people with guns saying, "Uh, nope. Nice try, but you have no authority here. I'll freely defend myself against you."?"
Sure - but that's specifically 90% not believing in authority; which, again, isn't necessarily correlative to 90% not voting.
Why do you make that distinction? 90% is 90%. We don't have to go into the philosophical details of why those 90% decided the way they did, the obvious fact of the numbers still communicates only 10% agree to this existing system and specifically advocated for it. Your argument states, "People don't get the philosophical motivations" and my argument also says the same: The details don't matter. The numerical result is only 10% agree to this, so does it really have the "consent of the governed"?
@lukestokes "Why do you make that distinction? 90% is 90%. We don't have to go into the philosophical details of why those 90% decided the way they did, the obvious fact of the numbers still communicates only 10% agree to this existing system and specifically advocated for it. Your argument states, "People don't get the philosophical motivations" and my argument also says the same: The details don't matter. The numerical result is only 10% agree to this, so does it really have the "consent of the governed"?"
It seems we have different opinions as to what constitutes "consent of the governed" -- you are suggesting that voting gives consent. I think it's much more involved than that. The state certainly doesn't believe that they need your consent via votes. Your consent is via the fact that you happen to live here, or that people signed documents a long time ago and that has bound you, etc. there are all sorts of reasons for it.
If you search for articles on voter turnout there are numerous given reasons, polls, explanations, etc. for low turnout. Most of it has to do with people being busy, not being able to take time off work, people thinking their vote won't influence anything, any any other number of reasons. It's not even in any average person's mind that not voting is due to non-consent to being governed. Or if it is, it certainly isn't reported that way. I never would have thought of that before being exposed to the ideas of self government.
I believe the turnout for the last midterm was 42% of eligible voters? Nobody suggested that 58% didn't give consent to be governed.
More specifically, I say the reasons behind not voting matters is because if it is because people don't believe in authority of the state, their behavior would actively change in ways that would break the system.
If the state has no authority, people wouldn't vote because it would be a joke. They also wouldn't pull over for police, wouldn't pay taxes, wouldn't show up for court for victimless crime accusations, etc. the system would fall apart.
If they believe the authority exists, and the majority of people don't vote for other reasons (which already happens... e.g. the last midterm) people still go along with everything. Taxes get paid, people request permission for permits to build on their own property, people request permission slips to get married, etc.
Voting is more of a symptom of the problem than a cause of it, it seems to me. I don't personally know anybody who votes and then thinks "now I have actively given my consent to these people" due to having pressed a button.
If 90% of people stopped voting, but they all still believe in the authority and legitimacy of the state over them and everyone else, how does that change anything other than more people complaining about how apathetic everyone is and more chanting about how people "get the government they deserve" due to "not exercising the rights that others does to preserve for them" ?
A majority already don't vote and I haven't seen any evidence that it has made any difference thus far. I do believe the US has one of the lowest turnout rates in the world as it stands already.