You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Where has "pure libertarianism" worked?
It's not the reality of How we wish but the reality of what Democracy is. It's either Majority Rule or it's not and reality doesn't come into play because we never went on a wishing trip.
It would be far more meaningful if those who actually wanted to protest turned in blank ballots. At best non voting is an ignored abstention at at worst simply recognized as not caring enough to even have a voice in the process.
It's a vote on principle, and regardless of blank ballots, and your inferring on what people "care", because clearly it's recognized that the Majority didn't Vote whichever way you slice it, so it's not Democracy.
If 11% gather to vote is it still Democracy, if 1% of 11% gathered is it still a democracy? The Beard Argument.
I think there is great irony in telling me what I am inferring from peoples votes :)
The reality is... no one cares and its not talked about except at the rare dark corner of the internet.
If you want to be counted take an action that can be. :) Thats my point.
It's only ironic if you assume you inferred correctly.
The point was that the action is to Not Play The Game, and a point you've not contested with logic, so at what point is the game no more? 11%?
Thats why its ironic. You are accusing me of inferring when im simply pointing out that you don't know. You are assuming everyone not voting is a protest. You simply have no clue.
And if you don't know how many non participates it would take to theoretically "stop the game" then you don't know that either.
You are making massive assumptions about stuff that you have no actual information on or limit.
Clearly some percentage of the population will keep on voting. You plan is so extreme as to be meaningless. Also you haven't recognized that your protests aren't even recognized because again, you are assuming everyone that doesn't vote is a protest. False.
Democracy isn't democracy without a majority, and when the majority doesn't participate, for whatever the reason, consciously or not, it's a majority or a Mandate in a very visceral and undeniably democratic way.
I don't know because I don't know, despite that I was questioning you rhetorically with any arbitrary percentage below that at which a majority could Theoretically be a Democracy, a threshold that hasn't been reached in as long as a majority haven't all cast their votes for one person or one issue.
Such as what a Democracy is and isn't and what or am I making assumptions on what majority does when they don't participate like you who claim that despite their non-participation it doesn't mean anything and can mean everything, but certainly not that it's either democracy or majority, or a valid choice even.
I made no suggestions.
It's not my business what others recognize, it's evident to anyone that a choice to not vote doesn't necessitate a protest, but non-participation and the questions is at what point does a Democracy stop being a democracy and why is the choice of non-participation not recognized and clearly so as NON-PARTICIPATION?