our votes have not mattered for a very long time. Much longer than most people seem to realize. I doubt they have mattered much since the end of the second war for sure, and possibly before that.
They don't matter precisely because people do not vote their conscience. They listen to Big Brother, and vote instead for the "lesser evil" "who can win".
It doesn't matter if people vote according to their conscience. That does not change the fact that the entire system is not being run by who we see. Even if the very best person got voted in, they would never be allowed to make real, progressive changes that would benefit the people. They would be made to look corrupt and probably would be corrupt in a fairly short time.
"That does not change the fact that the entire system is not being run by who we see."
If all people voted their conscience, the powerful would see right quick there's a problem. More importantly, so would the rest of us.
If the "best person" was not permitted to act, people should go to the streets, en masse. The U.S., however, appears to have *the worst* political insouciance of any ostensible democracy.
"They would be made to look corrupt and probably would be corrupt in a fairly short time." -- Not if people pay close attention. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure these things out.
The problem, simply, is peoples' comfort, subservience, and herd behavior. Not the opportunities that political slimeballs take advantage of.
the powerful would not give a flying f**k if there was a problem. Just as long as they were still in power one way or another. Dissenters would be arrested at worst, ignored at best.
They don't vote for who they think who could best do the job. They vote for who will win, or who their friends want or think will win or should win, because they want to be part of the in (power) - group. In other words, they're too comfortable to spend time seriously considering the long-term damage they collectively risk doing by not voting for the person they think will do the best job. They'd rather virtue-signal than heavy-lift. They'll tell you silly things like "I don't want to waste my vote."
My question is what is conscience? Do they have one if they consciously do something that is ostensibly against their principles? I maintain in that case they don't have conscience, hence cannot - and do not - vote one.
OK, missed that. A dictionary definition of conscience:
"An awareness of morality in regard to one's behavior; a sense of right and wrong that urges one to act morally."
I'd say that their conscience about most things is weak, but if you poke them about it, they'll usually and quickly regurgitate a rationale on the spot, canned responses that are basic virtue signaling. When they vote, these surface rationales are operating consciously, even if briefly and only inch-deep. Challenging them produces anger (inside), and (these days) shunning. (They've been well-trained in recent decades not to debate, but to disengage.) It allows them to check off the "do the right thing" boxes without breaking a sweat, and go on to whatever really occupies their minds.
In this case, since they don't like to think very much, the "always vote!" combined with the "don't waste your vote" propaganda are effectively preventing them from picking candidates that they think have the best positions. As largely passive receptacles, this majority of voters often get a good sense that Trump on the one hand and Sanders/Warren on the other are (at least) addressing their needs, but feel afraid to affirm these candidates, even in the voting booth. The psychological pressure is heavy.
our votes have not mattered for a very long time. Much longer than most people seem to realize. I doubt they have mattered much since the end of the second war for sure, and possibly before that.
They don't matter precisely because people do not vote their conscience. They listen to Big Brother, and vote instead for the "lesser evil" "who can win".
It doesn't matter if people vote according to their conscience. That does not change the fact that the entire system is not being run by who we see. Even if the very best person got voted in, they would never be allowed to make real, progressive changes that would benefit the people. They would be made to look corrupt and probably would be corrupt in a fairly short time.
"That does not change the fact that the entire system is not being run by who we see."
If all people voted their conscience, the powerful would see right quick there's a problem. More importantly, so would the rest of us.
If the "best person" was not permitted to act, people should go to the streets, en masse. The U.S., however, appears to have *the worst* political insouciance of any ostensible democracy.
"They would be made to look corrupt and probably would be corrupt in a fairly short time." -- Not if people pay close attention. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure these things out.
The problem, simply, is peoples' comfort, subservience, and herd behavior. Not the opportunities that political slimeballs take advantage of.
the powerful would not give a flying f**k if there was a problem. Just as long as they were still in power one way or another. Dissenters would be arrested at worst, ignored at best.
Sure, they wouldn't care; they're psycho-/socio-paths. But they could be held accountable.
If that's not their conscience then what is? Are you saying they actually think differently? Are you sure?
They don't vote for who they think who could best do the job. They vote for who will win, or who their friends want or think will win or should win, because they want to be part of the in (power) - group. In other words, they're too comfortable to spend time seriously considering the long-term damage they collectively risk doing by not voting for the person they think will do the best job. They'd rather virtue-signal than heavy-lift. They'll tell you silly things like "I don't want to waste my vote."
So, what's inaccurate about that description?
I understood what you said the first time.
My question is what is conscience? Do they have one if they consciously do something that is ostensibly against their principles? I maintain in that case they don't have conscience, hence cannot - and do not - vote one.
OK, missed that. A dictionary definition of conscience:
"An awareness of morality in regard to one's behavior; a sense of right and wrong that urges one to act morally."
I'd say that their conscience about most things is weak, but if you poke them about it, they'll usually and quickly regurgitate a rationale on the spot, canned responses that are basic virtue signaling. When they vote, these surface rationales are operating consciously, even if briefly and only inch-deep. Challenging them produces anger (inside), and (these days) shunning. (They've been well-trained in recent decades not to debate, but to disengage.) It allows them to check off the "do the right thing" boxes without breaking a sweat, and go on to whatever really occupies their minds.
In this case, since they don't like to think very much, the "always vote!" combined with the "don't waste your vote" propaganda are effectively preventing them from picking candidates that they think have the best positions. As largely passive receptacles, this majority of voters often get a good sense that Trump on the one hand and Sanders/Warren on the other are (at least) addressing their needs, but feel afraid to affirm these candidates, even in the voting booth. The psychological pressure is heavy.
Remember what mark twain said, if it mattered,they wouldn’t let us do it.