Voting is an act of faith, a fantasy.

When you believe in a political ideology or when you cast your vote for a candidate, what you are doing is acting on the only political manifestation of your free will. What are you doing with your only mental freedom is essentially saying "I believe in this candidate, and I trust that all his actions will reflect my views for his/her duration in office." The candidate for which you vote has no legal, morale or spiritual requirement to serve your interests - and may in fact act in a way that you find contrary to your beliefs. It would be in ignorance of history to believe that an oligarchy has ever served it's supporters rather than itself.

In this sense, you have agreed for the duration to suspend your free will for the sake of a fantasy.

What I find interesting is that the analogy of political belief to religious belief does not end with the illustration of faith vs. reason. A good example (barring the political bias) of this is the book "What's wrong with Kansas", on which the premise is that individuals who would receive the greatest personal benefit from voting for the American Democratic Party, choose instead to vote for the American Republican Party.

Taking as a given that a particular group would believe in a political party that has little benefit for them, comparisons to cult-religion such as Scientology and LDS are numerous and easy to make, and I will leave them for you to infer.

My message is this, that unless your free will can be acted upon the political sphere constantly, you have no free will or sentience on that political scale. You are a non-entity.

Delicious, copypasta or no.

>>1
Propose a better system or GTFO.

God supports Romney.  Do you support God?

>>3
I am aware of the inherit danger of this idea, as I am currently and always surrounded by you people.

However, a proposed change to the system, not involving any new form of government or serious change would be this : allow a vote to truly represent the will of the representable by allowing said vote to be changed at will.

Of course, the danger of this is quite obvious - people are too retarded to be awarded their own opinions. We'd have pre-human beings swinging votes around to the tune of dangerous political candidates, political change would occur too much too quickly, etc. etc.

I understand this fear, which is why the weight of votes should not be represented by majority. If 10% of the country wants an ignorant redneck like Ron Paul, then Ron Paul should have a 10% say in this country.

I am aware of the inherit problem of this as well, 'how could anything get done when we have as many political representatives as votes needing to be represented?'. I think this, more than anything, is a fallacy shaped by the view of the current system - if ones vote is no longer absolute for the duration of the political time-table, then laws amended by candidates no longer have the same sense of permanence and absolute rule. After all, the only politics that matter are local politics, and we can't have morons passing absolute laws over an entire country if the laws only apply to a fraction of that country.

While this is merely my thoughts on the subject at the moment, I feel that any system attempting to evolve out of the faith of voting to be a good one. You are either sentient all of the time, or you are scum.

have you ever went over a friends house to eat
and the food just aint no good
i mean the macaroni's soggy the peas are mushed
and the chicken tastes like wood
so you try to play it off like you think you can
by sayin that youre full
and then your friend says momma he's just being polite
he aint finished uh uh that's bull
so your heart starts pumpin and you think of a lie
and you say that you already ate
and your friend says man there's plenty of food
so you pile some more on your plate
while the stinky foods steamin your mind starts to dreamin
of the moment that it's time to leave
and then you look at your plate and your chickens slowly rottin
into something that looks like cheese
oh so you say that's it i got to leave this place
i dont care what these people think
im just sittin here makin myself nauseous
with this ugly food that stinks
so you bust out the door while its still closed
still sick from the food you ate
and then you run to the store for quick relief
from a bottle of kaopectate
and then you call your friend two weeks later
to see how he has been
and he says i understand about the food
baby bubbah but we're still friends
with a hip hop the hippie to the hippie
the hip hip a hop a you dont stop the rockin
to the bang bang boogie
say up jump the boogie to the rhythm of the boogie the beat

We need a system of anti-votes, so that even when people are not motivated to vote for someone, they can at least vote against someone.

Elect me as ruler of the world. Im pretty sure I could do an ok job. Heck, I might let some of you guys have a say.

The best thing we can possibly hope for is an intelligent, wise, benevolent monarchy/dictatorship.  Democracies and republics just turn into endless back and forth squabbling and neglect of anyone who isn't a high level official.

>>1
No shit sherlock. This is nothing new. What the fuck is wrong with you? Are you retarded?

It's called working as a team for mutual gain and you should have defined this concept as early as primary school whilst playing football and realising if you hog the ball your team will suffer.

>>10

Except for the guy with the ball (if he/she knows how to handle it.)

>>11
If you hog the ball you won't win.

>>10 Are you retarded?

ITT >>10 IS THE GODDAMN BATMAN

>>13
So? If I wanted to be insulted by some 13 year old I'd play counter strike and call someone a noob.