Voting, at least at a national level, doesn’t change anything, because we are not ruled by politicians but by corporations who own those politicians. At a communal level it’s different, but that’s not the topic here.
What it does though, is giving legitimacy to an illegitimate system.
If 80% of people would not vote, the system would quicky start to have a legitimacy crisis.
It would be nice to find out, seeing as how the current strategy of voting blue no matter what very observably leads to genocide and less and less differences between the two parties.
Is this some kind of ploy to try and find some “Voting is always good” counter point, that voting in and of itself is democracy and having that is better then nothing? Which is why you seem to be implying that the system doesn’t need to justify itself, that if the system didn’t do that it would still function and people would still participate, because it is, after all, “Democracy”?
Quit beating around the bush and just say what you mean instead of being a coy annoyance.
I don’t mean anything yet. I’m trying to find out what the system being “justified” functionally does, from your perspective. From my perspective you’re being vague, I’m trying to find my way through the bush here, not beat around it.
Voting, at least at a national level, doesn’t change anything, because we are not ruled by politicians but by corporations who own those politicians. At a communal level it’s different, but that’s not the topic here. What it does though, is giving legitimacy to an illegitimate system. If 80% of people would not vote, the system would quicky start to have a legitimacy crisis.
Why does the system need your sense of its legitimacy
A system only really functions as long as it’s subjects perceive it as legitimate. Once you lose legitimacy, people start taking action.
It doesn’t need my sense of legitimacy but if 80% of people say no it will have a problem justifying itself.
Why does it need to justify itself? What do you think happens when it does not?
It would be nice to find out, seeing as how the current strategy of voting blue no matter what very observably leads to genocide and less and less differences between the two parties.
Is this some kind of ploy to try and find some “Voting is always good” counter point, that voting in and of itself is democracy and having that is better then nothing? Which is why you seem to be implying that the system doesn’t need to justify itself, that if the system didn’t do that it would still function and people would still participate, because it is, after all, “Democracy”?
Quit beating around the bush and just say what you mean instead of being a coy annoyance.
I don’t mean anything yet. I’m trying to find out what the system being “justified” functionally does, from your perspective. From my perspective you’re being vague, I’m trying to find my way through the bush here, not beat around it.