Kksd74628

Unpopular opinion: No more voting

42 posts in this topic

Voting gives people false sense of control over decision making about political, environmental and sociological topics. If you want to have any reasonable impact on how people think you should start writing to big audience, making youtube videos or joining to public discussions. Almost no one of the people voting do know even the basic things about politics and therefore their "opinion" about it doesn't make any sense. That shows why being active about politics and thinking is incredibly essential in order to come into any smart conclusion. Politics is science of how to lead country or humanity to best place possible and there shouldn't be "opinions". They just don't count.

There are also other problems in our politics such as there are always sides which by definition means that our politics aren't holistic. It shouldn't be about whose perspective is the best, but how we can combine all the perspectives to one thing and have wise decision based on all the information we got. I also understand the point of voting which just tries to prevent people with more power to destroy people who are lacking it. I even agree that this is a good goal, but I'd say that we should evolve our way of having control about decisions, because voting is just too oldish and superficial.

Voting could only work if people who are allowed to vote know politics, system thinking and models like spiral dynamics extremely well and even in that scenario it'd be better to put those people just to place where people actually have control over anything important. We have internet and it should be used like 100x more to talk and discuss about politics, because it is that important in grand scheme of things. It's incredibly stupid that our school system barely teaches us about different political systems and some core points. Also in my school in Finland we had just like 2 required philosophy cources so what the fuck ...

As you can't vote in physics you shouldn't in political things, because both should be just truths about which works well to achieve things we value and also what we value are basically same between people. I am now talking in structure level like we all value freedom to express ourself as we like, peace, happiness, love, equality etc. Of course in the content level how we do those things can vary and a lot, but that's not the point I am trying to make. I agree that goverment shouldn't for example force everyone to dance, because based on the science that makes people happiest on average or something. That'd be just idiocy.

Good society can be built with or without voting, but right now I am suggesting that without it and by making couple adjustments to how things work we'd be faster where we want to go as a whole. We should have places in every town where people who are interested could practice having political discussions and that'd boost our overall skill of having these conversations and it'd connect people better to "opposite" views. There could be also some teachers who tell when the conversation isn't going to the right direction. As you can see there are millions of different ways to impact and voting is maybe the one of the worst at least how it works right now.

-joNi-


Who told you that "others" are real?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@KH2

We continue politics normally maybe trying to aim little more holistic sides for example by requiring education which includes study of system thinking, important models and morality which is based on high values. Only big difference actually is just that people start to vote by their actions like the videos, debates and essays that I showed. Point is to activate society by breaking down the illusion of control that all the sheep have.


Who told you that "others" are real?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kksd74628

7 hours ago, Kksd74628 said:

Voting gives people false sense of control over decision making about political, environmental and sociological topics. If you want to have any reasonable impact on how people think you should start writing to big audience, making youtube videos or joining to public discussions. Almost no one of the people voting do know even the basic things about politics and therefore their "opinion" about it doesn't make any sense. That shows why being active about politics and thinking is incredibly essential in order to come into any smart conclusion. Politics is science of how to lead country or humanity to best place possible and there shouldn't be "opinions". They just don't count.

There are also other problems in our politics such as there are always sides which by definition means that our politics aren't holistic. It shouldn't be about whose perspective is the best, but how we can combine all the perspectives to one thing and have wise decision based on all the information we got. I also understand the point of voting which just tries to prevent people with more power to destroy people who are lacking it. I even agree that this is a good goal, but I'd say that we should evolve our way of having control about decisions, because voting is just too oldish and superficial.

Voting could only work if people who are allowed to vote know politics, system thinking and models like spiral dynamics extremely well and even in that scenario it'd be better to put those people just to place where people actually have control over anything important. We have internet and it should be used like 100x more to talk and discuss about politics, because it is that important in grand scheme of things. It's incredibly stupid that our school system barely teaches us about different political systems and some core points. Also in my school in Finland we had just like 2 required philosophy cources so what the fuck ...

As you can't vote in physics you shouldn't in political things, because both should be just truths about which works well to achieve things we value and also what we value are basically same between people. I am now talking in structure level like we all value freedom to express ourself as we like, peace, happiness, love, equality etc. Of course in the content level how we do those things can vary and a lot, but that's not the point I am trying to make. I agree that goverment shouldn't for example force everyone to dance, because based on the science that makes people happiest on average or something. That'd be just idiocy.

Good society can be built with or without voting, but right now I am suggesting that without it and by making couple adjustments to how things work we'd be faster where we want to go as a whole. We should have places in every town where people who are interested could practice having political discussions and that'd boost our overall skill of having these conversations and it'd connect people better to "opposite" views. There could be also some teachers who tell when the conversation isn't going to the right direction. As you can see there are millions of different ways to impact and voting is maybe the one of the worst at least how it works right now.

-joNi-

   I'd agree if it was written like this: No more voting on personality alone. Vote on policy and hard facts, not cherry-picked stats and sweet lies.

   Or, if that's really hard to do, put on a very educated dictator as president, skip the democratic formalities, straight to efficient rulership, make America not great again, but make America make fucking sense again, and none of these two parties or many parties system for a while until a lot more people are more educated and freer from pop culture and social media poisoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

No more voting on personality alone. Vote on policy and hard facts, not cherry-picked stats and sweet lies.

How would you know why people vote for what?

They could vote for personality every time or they could vote for that person because of the facts, but how would you determine which one is the case?

55 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

Only big difference actually is just that people start to vote by their actions like the videos, debates and essays that I showed.

What would this mean in practice though?

8 hours ago, Kksd74628 said:

As you can't vote in physics you shouldn't in political things, because both should be just truths about which works well to achieve things we value and also what we value

We can have almost perfect calculations and equations about physics, but thats not the case about politics at all. There is no one perfect equation or way to do it, all political action requires a lot of contemplation, and rethinking of the methods and the creation of new methods and new ways to solve things etc. It would be too reductive to try to make a perfect equation, because the world is in constant change, people are changing our values are changing , our tools to solve problems are changing etcetc.

Also, your statement assumes, that all of us have the same values, but thats also not the case. Sure everyone loves the word "freedom" and "healthcare for everyone" etc, but everyone has his/her own hierarchy of values, and when it comes to the distribution of goods and services and power, then all disagreements comes automatically . For some people freedom might be 1st in priority,but for others it might only  be the 4th or 5th on list.

8 hours ago, Kksd74628 said:

We should have places in every town where people who are interested could practice having political discussions and that'd boost our overall skill of having these conversations and it'd connect people better to "opposite" views. There could be also some teachers who tell when the conversation isn't going to the right direction. As you can see there are millions of different ways to impact and voting is maybe the one of the worst at least how it works right now.

This is not mutually exclusive with voting. You can have all these things and voting as well.

Edited by zurew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Danioover9000

The question which remains is that why we need to vote after we know hard facts about which works and which doesn't?


Who told you that "others" are real?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@zurew

Basically people should just participate more into political discussions in an internet if they seek for any reasonable amount of impact on how things unfold in our society. Everyone's top value is love and that could be good starting point to our politics. Holistical thinkers for sure would have better solutions than what we have right now. I am not seeking for perfect equation nor I never said that. What I said was that we should treat political questions the same way we treat physics which is not through biased "opinions". Opinions don't change what is good for us and what isn't. Our opinion based politics is just very childish and oldish approach which has nothing to do what really works.


Who told you that "others" are real?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

Everyone's top value is love and that could be good starting point to our politics.

What love means in practice will be very different for people, based on a thousand different things.

5 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

What I said was that we should treat political questions the same way we treat physics which is not through biased "opinions". Opinions don't change what is good for us and what isn't.

The "what is good" and "what is good for us"  parts are not clear cut and not the same for everyone and that will be a problem in your system , where no outside input (vote) will be on the table for people, who would be considered not holistic thinkers or uneducated people. 

Also what about people who value freedom the most? Your system completely goes against their 1st priority of value, and that will eventually manifest in outbursts and protests etc.

13 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

Our opinion based politics is just very childish and oldish approach which has nothing to do what really works.

So how is your system better, where a group of people make decisions for everyone, where that group of people have all the power in their hands, where they can misuse their power easily , because no one hold them accountable for their actions (under the assumption that they will only seek the best for all people), and where if you disagree with the system and if they exploit you, you and basically no one outside of that group have any say and need to obey to their order without any question or say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@zurew

9 hours ago, zurew said:

What love means in practice will be very different for people, based on a thousand different things.

I already stated in my original post that in the content level things can vary and a lot, but this discussion was never about it. Point is to gather information and do smart decisions based on those. For example adding philosophy, system thinking and maybe even spirituality in some form to our education system would be overall good decision. In that we don't need to know how individual people use those in practice, because those are important even to your thought process, self-development and happiness. Only reason we haven't done those decisions is because people who vote don't see those possibilities.

9 hours ago, zurew said:

Also what about people who value freedom the most?

They are wrong then. Freedom can be important in order to get happiness, but if you'd need to give little freedom away to get happiness, any mature human being would choose that, because that's a correct decision. It's like asking which is more important the overall taste in your soup or the amount of pepper used in it. Those who argue for freedom argue that the amout of pepper is more important than the overall taste (happiness, love and peace of mind). They miss the bigger picture and that's why those shouldn't even be allowed to vote in the first place. They clearly lack understanding how they should think about these things.

9 hours ago, zurew said:

So how is your system better, where a group of people make decisions for everyone, where that group of people have all the power in their hands, where they can misuse their power easily , because no one hold them accountable for their actions (under the assumption that they will only seek the best for all people), and where if you disagree with the system and if they exploit you, you and basically no one outside of that group have any say and need to obey to their order without any question or say.

You make it sound like we take all control away from people when in actuality that boosts control in smart people who actually put effort to go to discussions, make youtube videos and essays. Always if you want you can even send your ideas to the people thinking about the correct decision or maybe you could finally put yourself into the equation and study the school that I explained and you could go yourself to participate in politics. Again I see from your type of writing that you're pretty lost in the idea that voting nowadays gives any control to people. Wake up from the matrix, because by only voting you have zero impact, period.


Who told you that "others" are real?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kksd74628 said:

Point is to gather information and do smart decisions based on those. For example adding philosophy, system thinking and maybe even spirituality in some form to our education system would be overall good decision.

This idea is compatible with a democratic system, you don't need to abolish voting to achieve these things.

1 hour ago, Kksd74628 said:

Only reason we haven't done those decisions is because people who vote don't see those possibilities.

This is an assumption, and you can't know this with 100% certanty, because we haven't had political parties that would offer those possibilities and ideas , so you can't know if people would vote for them or not.

1 hour ago, Kksd74628 said:

They are wrong then. Freedom can be important in order to get happiness, but if you'd need to give little freedom away to get happiness, any mature human being would choose that, because that's a correct decision.

They are not wrong, they have different preferences than you, and you want to make it look like ,that you have the right preference, when in reality all preferences are subjective.

With your preference we could have a hypothetical world, where the happiness is maximized, but there is 0% free will. 

1 hour ago, Kksd74628 said:

You make it sound like we take all control away from people when in actuality that boosts control in smart people who actually put effort to go to discussions, make youtube videos and essays.

You obviously argue for a system where most people don't have any say, so me saying that you take away control and power from most people is correct and stands.

1 hour ago, Kksd74628 said:

Again I see from your type of writing that you're pretty lost in the idea that voting nowadays gives any control to people. Wake up from the matrix, because by only voting you have zero impact, period.

You have an old totalitarian idea, where you assume that a group of people will do everything in favour of all people without misuing their power, without exploitation, where you have no way to check on these people, and you have no way to change the system without violence. 

So how do you make sure, that people who will be in power in your system, won't misuse their power, and won't exploit? Under a democratic system we have ways to have pressure on the system and we have ways to change the system, but in your world thats not possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@zurew

16 minutes ago, zurew said:

This is an assumption, and you can't know this with 100% certanty, because we haven't had political parties that would offer those possibilities and ideas , so you can't know if people would vote for them or not.

It's not about will people vote for them or not. What I am talking about is that would it be beneficial or not. Those are completely different layers of discussions. If it would be beneficial, but people wouldn't vote for it then that would just prove my point that voting oldish way number to paper is not the most optimal way to do politics, because we don't get the best decisions available.

19 minutes ago, zurew said:

With your preference we could have a hypothetical world, where the happiness is maximized, but there is 0% free will.

If happiness, love and peace would be optimized with zero free will then in that imaginary case that would be the correct decision. Love is the last measurement for are we doing well and I agree that freedom can boost that, but if it'd really be the case that society with zero free will would have more love than one with some of it then we should go for the society with zero free will. That's an easy choice to make if you aren't too biased to see that.

24 minutes ago, zurew said:

You obviously argue for a system where most people don't have any say, so me saying that you take away control and power from most people is correct and stands.

People who don't care too much about politics, have enough understanding about politics and take real action would have less say. You are correct and that's the point in that thought game. We'd be better off without sheep people voting for whatever looks best on the surface level. Do you really think that we get the most optimal opinion from people when the majority of people vote based on all stupid reasons like their biases, traumas and their favourite person doing the politics?

30 minutes ago, zurew said:

You have an old totalitarian idea, where you assume that a group of people will do everything in favour of all people without misuing their power, without exploitation, where you have no way to check on these people, and you have no way to change the system without violence. 

So how do you make sure, that people who will be in power in your system, won't misuse their power, and won't exploit? Under a democratic system we have ways to have pressure on the system and we have ways to change the system, but in your world thats not possible. 

We misuse the power already so that wouldn't be anything new. People with more followers on social media have stronger impact than the one only voting and everyone deplatforms people so they can't express their opinions. Youtube or even that forum doesn't allow you to to discuss the negative sides of corona politics for example and people are so well brainwashed that they even think that this cencoring is done with good reasons. Don't begin talking to me about misusing power, because our system is doing it already so well that majority of people don't even see it. Again that is the point of taking voting away so we break the false sense of control in decision making among the people living in that society.


Who told you that "others" are real?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

Do you really think that we get the most optimal opinion from people when the majority of people vote based on all stupid reasons like their biases, traumas and their favourite person doing the politics?

No, but I don't think your alternative is any way better, giving the fact that in your system if shit gets real and things going downhill the only way to change that is if people start to get super violent, start to burn shit down and stuff like that.

I could ask you the opposite: Do you really think, that we get the most optimal governing from people who have all the power in their hands and they can do whatever the fuck they want with that power without giving any fuck about people's best interest and without anyone holding them accountable for their actions?

10 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

We misuse the power already so that wouldn't be anything new

No, you ignored my point here.

49 minutes ago, zurew said:

Under a democratic system we have ways to have pressure on the system and we have ways to change the system,but in your world thats not possible. 

If a handful of people governing the whole country and they are making all the decisions without any outside input, in that case if those people start to become corrupt and start to exploit people, then in that system you have no way to try to break that system other than violence. In a democractic system if most of the people is fed up with a particular party's bullshit and a particular party's way of governing the country, then they can elect a different party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

Youtube or even that forum doesn't allow you to to discuss the negative sides of corona politics for example and people are so well brainwashed that they even think that this cencoring is done with good reasons.

Thats a completely different issue that needs to be discussed. Also, your system doesn't solve this problem ,the brainwashing and the negative effects of social media will still stand unless your group of people will totally ban those - but then you will suffer other negative effects. Its not that as if this issue as easy as your try to frame it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

Don't begin talking to me about misusing power, because our system is doing it already so well that majority of people don't even see it.

Structurally speaking we have more ways to solve this problem under a democractic system vs your totalitarian system where your whole structure actually calls for more exploitation and corruption because its totally centralized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@zurew

10 minutes ago, zurew said:

No, but I don't think your alternative is any way better, giving the fact that in your system if shit gets real and things going downhill the only way to change that is if people start to get super violent, start to burn shit down and stuff like that.

I could ask you the opposite: Do you really think, that we get the most optimal governing from people who have all the power in their hands and they can do whatever the fuck they want with that power without giving any fuck about people's best interest and without anyone holding them accountable for their actions?

What if nowadays things go downhill and society starts to exploit you ... ... ... vote more :D? Don't you see that voting isn't the only way to impact to your society? I never said that suddenly everyone is slave to couple people governing whole society. If you really think that our number to paper based voting is the only thing keeping our society in its place then you're too brainwashed, because that just isn't true. There are alternative ways to impact and I think they're just better and before you ask what they are read my previous messages so we don't need to circle around this thing forever.

8 minutes ago, zurew said:

Structurally speaking we have more ways to solve this problem under a democractic system vs your totalitarian system where your whole structure actually calls for more exploitation and corruption because its totally centralized.

Who said that I was speaking for totalitarian system :D?


Who told you that "others" are real?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

Who said that I was speaking for totalitarian system :D?

Quote

Totalitarianism is a form of government that attempts to assert total control over the lives of its citizens

Thats exactly how your system sounds to me. You even say that people don't even know what they want, so you would prefer if you could change their beliefs and ideology overall. That and all the other things that you talked about is pointing to a totalitarian system.

42 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

Don't you see that voting isn't the only way to impact to your society?

I obviously see that there are many ways to impact society other than voting. But those impacts will still be there no matter if you abolish voting or not.

 

Edited by zurew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@zurew

I said that we should change the voting number to paper to more voting by other actions more systematically. It would actually boost the good impact smart people could abuse. Again the reason I don't like this normal voting option is, because it gives false sense of power and that makes people too passive to actually stand for good things. That we can vote our "opinions" leads our politicans also to fight their "opinions" instead of actually going for holistic conversations which we need. I just showed one possibility and as I said we can build great society with any system. It was just great thought experiment.

Edited by Kksd74628
Typo

Who told you that "others" are real?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If thats the case, then I think the closest system to your idea under democracy is liquid democracy. In that case we still don't totally abandon the voting part, but people can give their vote to people who they believe will make better decisions for whatever reasons. - in this case freedom is not totally lost.

Quote

Voters in a liquid democracy have the right to vote directly on all policy issues à la direct democracy; voters also have the option to delegate their votes to someone who will vote on their behalf à la representative democracy.

 

Edited by zurew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

I just showed one possibility and as I said we can build great society with any system

Yes, I agree, that hypothetically its possible to build a great society almost under any system, however I think when we talk about things like this, we should take into account things like morality as well. (Do we really believe that we only care about the results without giving any fuck about how we achieve those results and at what cost?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@zurew

If hypothetically giving voting away would increase happiness that would be good decision. That is the thing I think we should first agree and after that we can test if that for real would happen and if not what is restricting that and could we adjust something so that happens. Could you agree on that point with me?

Edited by Kksd74628

Who told you that "others" are real?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't optimize for happiness, If I would had to, I would optimize for development, and that would automatically lead to more love and happiness. Because if you optimize for happiness, there are scenarios, where you could create a happy society,where they are lacking development.

When I say development I mean - spiritually, cognitively, physically, intellectually.

1 hour ago, Kksd74628 said:

If hypothetically giving voting away would increase happiness that would be good decision.

Generally speaking I would agree with this statement, but to me it matters what the cost is, and what methods are used to achieve that increased happiness.

Edited by zurew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now