?

Voting for the corrupt does nothing but legitimizes the process. Only money matters.

Come up with a real solution because voting isn't it and I'm sick of hearing the same faulty advice.

At a minimum, vote AGAINST the corrupt. If that means your vote gets wasted, so be it - if you're worried about legitimizing it, instead legitimize your opposition. If there becomes a sizable (and measured!) block of disaffected votes that politicians can try to grab, maybe they'll just do that.

Not voting just legitimizes the view that you complain but don't act.

(And if you're sick of your options being so bad, start trying to get different voting methods in place locally in the interest of getting them in place on a larger scale. First Past the Post is a terrible voting system)

Preferential voting, or "how to vote for your real choices and not throw away your vote"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method#Comparison_tabl...

This is a good example of a common sense reform that strengthens every ideal that we are supposed to hold dear in this country, but that threatens the establishment powers therefore stands zero chance of happening.

..uh well with a defeatist attitude you've just validated a self fulfilling prophecy without even trying.

Do you know why money matters in politics? Because it buys votes. Politicians are willing to sell their opinions for money because it is expensive to run a campaign convincing people who are otherwise apathetic to vote for you. And that is were most political campaigns are won because most people who aren't apathetic about an election have already made up their mind before the campaigns' marketing efforts even start up.

It all comes back to votes.

Yeah, and if you don't vote you get what the money wants without a fight. If you work to create things like Uber, to solve a first-world problem such as "mediocre taxis" you should be able to work towards a communication system that can combat traditional marketing and its effect on voting patterns. Otherwise, you're just admitting it's "hard" and you don't want to work on "hard" problems...

>> work towards a communication system that can combat traditional marketing and its effect on voting patterns

We already did something like that. Obama got elected due to some internet based marketing innovations. Guess what happened next ? both parties copied those methods(AFAIK), and now we're at the same point, where resources matter.

Yup. A few lines of code and an app can totally bypass decades of psychological research regarding marketing.

Worked for open-source software. In a relatively short time (10 years +/-?), the traditional capitalistic model which worked for centuries seems to have been supplanted to at least some degree. I was thinking of several things: 1) Modern technology to provide direct communication, 2) Sheer numbers of people in each age cohort and 3) The desire to effect change.

Social media can slaughter a movie in a day or two. I would think it would have a useful effect on its users, assuming they were willing to make the effort.

Open Source was the capitalist response to Free Software, capturing the cost reduction of shared and unpaid voluntary work and reselling it as closed systems. If anything, it underlines the point that any change will be subverted and used against its originators.

For one of two paries that are essentially the same? Obama made a lot of big prommises before getting into power. He hasn't followed through on many of them at all.

A common reaction, but I find it inadequate.

You might find both major parties to be not good enough, but that in no way implies their policies are the same. Policies MATTER. Disappointed that Obama didn't do as much as he promised? So am I. Bothered by his reactions to things like Snowden? Ditto. But don't mistake those issues as being exactly what the other party would have done. [And for those that hold more conservative views, while recent Republicans haven't done much for actual limiting government and reducing spending, make no mistake that their policies would be notably different than Obama's or a fully Democratic Congress].

Policies matter, and policy differences matter. Don't mistake unhappiness as making the alternatives indistinguishable - all that does is reduce accountability and exacerbate the problem. (And this is true for liberals, conservatives, and those that don't hold such binary opinions alike)

We're definitely drifting off-topic, but I feel this is relevant to issues like the linked article in the HN space:

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9214015/tech-nerds-politics

Well good luck to you.

I think differences in policies are irrelevant given the current setup. If Obama's two terms have proven anything, it's how ineffective the system is. You don't see leader's, in any other field stand at the podium and sigh, groan and just look as frustrated/helpless as he does.

And telling people to vote for this kind of ineffectiveness (14 years now in the middle east, just to pick one issue) is like telling Snowden to keep his mouth shut and soldier on.

The political class feel like the medallion based taxicab union just waiting to be subverted.

I didn't say vote FOR the madness, I said vote against it. Even if that's voting for third party candidates. A vote is a metric. Non-voting gives them no reason to care about your opinion, while a vote (even for no one) means you act. [And once you consider policies, I think it's better to vote for a less-bad option that can win, but if you disagree, by all means vote 3rd party]

And I'm comparing voting in this case to not voting and just bitching, or taking up arms and revolting. Neither seems like a better option. If you have a third option that you feel is better, please share.

A question I like to pose: If the US system is truly unsustainable (American-style democracies are rare and have all failed save one...so far), AND you don't really believe that there will be some sort of country-wide rebellion, then what is a future you can believe in, and what do you think gets us there?

So far the answers I've gotten are:

* Country fractures * Dissolve the Senate * Adopt a Parliament system * Greater empowerment of Prez.

Mostly done not per the constitutional means, but just done, and everyone agrees to let it stand, kind of like the creation of West Virginia.

Though mostly, I get blank looks. It's not an easy problem.

> A question I like to pose: If the US system is truly unsustainable (American-style democracies are rare and have all failed save one...so far)

What possible concrete definition of "American-style democracies" is there for which this is both true and meaningful (e.g., its trivially true but clearly not meaningful if the definition is so narrow that the US is the only "American-style" democracy that has ever existed.)

(NB: All of this is my understanding, and could be completely in my head. Grains of salt recommended)

An american-style democracy (also: presidential democracy) involves the following:

* Separate executive and legislative branches

* A checks-and-balances system

I believe Chile had such a system, but collapsed because they didn't have an amendment system. Whenever the US helps set up a democracy (which we've done in both heavy-handed [Japan, Germany] and more advisory means [assorted African countries, etc]), we DON'T suggest our system, but instead a parliamentary one.

The number one issue (IMNSHO) with our system is that both the president and the legislature have equal validity, so if they have a dispute, how do we decide who legitimately represents the interests of the electorate? An example of that sort of roadblock caused The Dismissal in Australia, but we have it much worse.

As I understand the various parliamentary systems, in general, the legislature is voted in, forms a majority by agreement, appoints a Prime Minister, and seats the various Secretaries (or whatever titles). Laws are written (by and large) by the bureaucracies, not the legislators. Should the Prime Minister lose the ability to get results passed, a new election is called for. [Anyone that can correct me here, please do - it's been very hard to find what happens inside the "majority forms a government" phase]

Compared to American-style democracy, a parliamentary system has fewer roadblocks, and more empowerment to the govt agencies to suggest their own rules (subject to the requests made by legislators.

Voting for the lesser evil at the end of the day is non representative. It devalues the vote. It sends a wrong signal to establishment and to candidates.

The undecided voter is constantly bombarded with this "get out the vote or the republic will fall" fear-mongering line to push elections one way or another. At the end of the day it's a form of gaming the system.

FWIW, I used to feel the same. I voted my conscience, even when that meant voting third party or not-on-the-ballot write-ins.

Then we had Bush v Gore, when I had voted Nader. I got to see (In my opinion) a lot of bad decisions, and a lot of Constitutional violations. I felt responsible. (Was it my vote that made the difference? No. That doesn't make me feel better, because it was the concept that I backed that let this happen).

So now I vote for someone I can accept. I still value anyone that votes their conscience, as as I've argued above voting at all, even a "wasted" vote, is more meaningful than not voting. But I myself feel responsible for too much to do it when the stakes are high.

I'm not addressing not voting when you don't understand/know the issues - that's a separate discussion.

Well, Obama is only the President. Congress alone has the power to write laws and pass them. The current congress we have is not particularly interested in governing.

In Australia everyone has to vote. I think this is as it should be - voting isn't just a right, it is a duty. But of course the entire system is flawed because it seems to make no difference who you vote for. Team A and Team B play exactly the same game.

But the important thing for a given demographic is for that demographic to get enough members to vote. Because if politicians see that a good chunk of their base is 18-25 year olds, guess what their policy is going to be directed towards? After all, there is a good reason that it is political suicide to touch social security -- quite a few seniors vote.

Then it's your job to make one of those parties not the same.

Howard Dean's time as DNC chair showed you the blueprint for doing this. It was working. That's why they kicked him out.