Is Voting In Federal Elections Worth It?

Is voting worth it?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

Samseau

Peacock
Orthodox
Gold Member
Before you vote in this thread's poll, please read!

Wasn't sure where to post this thread, but I figure it's a cultural topic since I see the same criticism pop up over and over again after 2020 - voting is rigged, so there's no point in voting. This criticism isn't just on this forum, but I see it frequently in the real world, and on comment sections all over the net. I even felt this way for several months after 2020 as well.

In order to actually make a focused discussion on the topic, especially with the 2024 race coming up, I think having a thread to contain the discussion is a good idea. Far too many threads get hijacked with the topic of voting being worth it or not, so let's just have it out here and people can link to this thread instead of clogging up every other political thread. :laugh:

I agree with the general thrust of the argument that voting seems dumb and irrational in a rigged game. After all, why play in a rigged game? The only winning move in a rigged game is not to play.

However, upon closer reflection and analysis, there are several problems with "not voting".

1. Local elections matter - voting in local elections is definitely not rigged in most parts of the USA, and local taxes can be just as oppressive as state or federal taxes. I think everyone will agree local elections are important, which is why the poll is "federal elections."

2. It takes no effort to vote for federal elections since you'll already be there to vote for local candidates, right?

3. It costs them a LOT of money to rig elections:


Political spending in the 2020 election totaled $14.4 billion, more than doubling the total cost of the record-breaking 2016 presidential election cycle.

That’s according to OpenSecrets’ analysis of Federal Election Commission filings. OpenSecrets previously estimated that the 2020 election would cost around $14 billion. The extraordinary spending figure makes the 2020 election the most expensive of all time by a large margin.

The pricey presidential showdown between Joe Biden and Donald Trump was funded by an unprecedented number of small donors giving online and billionaires who wielded tremendous political influence over the last decade. Donors also fueled record spending in congressional races, capping off the 2020 election with the all-time most expensive Georgia Senate runoffs.

I think this number of $14.4 far underestimates just how much was spent - this really only measures campaign contributions and ad spending. What about all the money spent to change laws in each individual state, money spent to change voting laws with the corona hoax, and money spent to defend the rigged voting laws in courts? I believe the amount well totals over hundreds of billions.

Each race in each state is very expensive, added onto perhaps bribing judges and paying for the best lawyers... the total cost is more closely reflected in left-wing lawfare institutions like the Open Society, which spends $16+ billion a year, and this is just one of the many NGO's liberals are using to take over the America. When you add up all of the ways the influence peddling is performed, the amount is in the hundreds of billions.

Now, what does it cost you to vote? About 30 minutes of your time, by comparison. And perhaps a bit of gas money, maybe 4 or 5 bucks.

So, even if the vote is rigged, you spend basically nothing, meanwhile our enemies are forced to spend at minimum, tens of billions each election, more likely hundreds of billions, over the course of years in order to make water flow uphill. Because at the end of the day, none of this is organic or natural, it's all money driven based on the Federal Reserve rigging the economy to give trillions to those connected to the FED.

And this money printing comes at the cost of the empire itself, as every dollar printed further erodes whatever hegemony is left of America's rotting Empire.

So, while the game is rigged, it costs them a lot to rig it the game, and it costs us very little by comparison. Rather than be blackpilled about voting, it makes more sense to keep fighting since rigging elections comes at a pyrrhic victory for them, costing us nothing by comparison. While you vote for your local candidates, cast a federal vote as well because it costs them billions to undo your free vote.

Conversely, if you stop voting, then it frees up hundreds of billions that will be used against us in other ways. This is war, my brothers and sisters in Christ, and if you think by refraining from fighting (and in this case, voting = fighting back), things will improve, you are denying reality and are actually hurting yourself and your Neighbors. I recommend voting because it hurts them and helps us regardless of the outcome of the actual election.
 
I voted no at first, then wrote this post, and changed my vote to yes.

I think voting in local elections matters. A lot of states have passed laws this year restricting abortions, and restricting hormone treatments and surgical mutilations on minors for so-called gender transitions therapies. Likewise with gun freedoms. State government still matters.

I guess I should say that voting for the house and senate could make a difference as well, depending on who is running and what the voter split is.

I don't think the presidential vote will matter. The problem is that:

a)Elections will be stolen both in the case of the presidential elections, and with senators, such as the recent elections in Georgia

b)It doesn't matter anyway, because the uniparty will implement the same laws and spending either way, whether it is debt ceiling increases, or funding for Ukraine, or DoD policies on gays and trannies, or anything else.

I might vote for Trump, just for the foolish illusion that it matters, but I think the deep state, the courts, and the congress will have him on lockdown even if he wins another term.
 
No. I've posted why in longer-form before. In short democracy, particularly social democracy is inherently left wing. The only time you will go further right in a democratic system is when democracy is cut back, e.g. Turkey, Hungary.

The idea that everyone is worthy of having a say on how things should work is left wing, the lie that everyone's contribution matters is left wing, the safe space manner of how everything is meant to proceed is left wing, etc.

The dialectic is libs propose and conservatives critique. When conservatives propose going backwards it's fascism. Conservatives are always on the back foot, in terms of the dialectic and their mentality.

There is no turning this around without changing the system. And the US is so incredibly debased that there's not much left to save. The best option is secession for the large areas that could be resurrected.

By voting you are voting for a party that is overall sheepish in rolling things back to a lite version of 2015. That's the new fascism. Republican lite 2015 ideas are pushing back at things that were broadly unknown 10 years ago, like turning children into transgender etc.

The nature of most people is that they will be led and never really understand anything that is going on. You will never have a grassroots rebellion of the people driving the party. It happens the other way round.

Four years of Trump and two plus of Hunter's dad. You've ended up much further left. If you get another four orange years you'll end up much further left in the 2030s. There is no point engaging in a system that keeps going left wing. The more people who disengage the quicker the end will come and the chance for something better.

Local elections are having more effect, but with less scope. They could also be used as the launchpad for secession, which is the only political goal I see as worth pursuing.
 
I saw the thread title in the sidebar & was going to make a "Paging Samseau" joke, only to see you were the one who started the thread :laugh:

Anyway, I voted Yes, with the caveat that while Voting may be worth it, getting emotionally invested in a candidate isn't a good use of my time.

Honestly, it's quite hard to say, so this is an opinion I don't hold strongly. The way I see it, there are examples of voting being hugely important, just as there are examples of voting doing very little.

In the "voting is important" camp, we can take country-wide success stories, such as El Salvador's Bukele (based on his approval rating), just as we can point to voting producing massive failures such as Venezuela's Maduro. In both cases, voting drastically impacted the country (here I assume for the sake of argument that rigging didn't determine outcome).

Meanwhile, in the "voting isn't important" camp, we can easily point to unelected officials such as the WHO/CDC, Central Banks, the intelligence agencies, & perhaps the SEC. The officials here don't seem to change every 4 years. Likewise, we can also point to the fact that the West has been sliding Left for decades now; if Right-Wing presidents are elected, they are merely bullish pullbacks on a crashing American stock.

So I dunno. Maybe our expectations are just too high?

My problem is that while I'm fairly disillusioned with voting, I still haven't heard of anything better. Very open to ideas here, with the caveat that we should remain humble when discussing such grandiose topics as we're gonna have many blindspots.

So, while I'm sure we'd all like to escape the Uniparty & get to work on the problem unelected officials, until I hear an alternative that is both understandable & realistic I will continue to semi-mindlessly chuck my vote at whichever candidate seems less gay.
 
My problem is that while I'm fairly disillusioned with voting, I still haven't heard of anything better. Very open to ideas here, with the caveat that we should remain humble when discussing such grandiose topics as we're gonna have many blindspots.

The best system can't be one that has always gone further left. This is probably the worst system.

The problem is not the system, but implementing it. In the West many people believe that most people should have an opinion and have a say on how things work. To get to the narrowband of the healthy environment in which people should live requires for those ideas to go. There are a number of things that need to be in place for you to have a society that can continue between generations. You can't have a situation in which the masses can vote to break that up, which is what's happened. People voted to break the building blocks of society, because it felt pleasurable to do so at the time.

Take the protests against the Ukraine invasion in Russia. They were broken up very quickly and snuffed out. Western countries don't have the ability to do that. Or say UAE where its never explained what the law is, there is no heavy hand knocking things over, people just know how to behave. It's close to the opposite if the West.

The god of the West has been liberty. To be told what to do is a sin. But as it's panned out we are told what to do, more and more each year, as liberalism has matasrisised into its final form - leftism. Now liberty is only a god if its useful for the left.

Seemingly all traditional societies had quite a narrowband of moral laws, a top-down nature. There is no society without this. People will separate into different groups at odds with each other. Most people can't regulate themselves. They need to be in someone else's system that has pathways for them to make good decisions. Instead today we allow people to go ferral and pick up whatever ideas they can. Along with many poisiouness prompts from the red media, LGBT etc. That this truth be uttered is an anathema to our society. A society that has no belief that others know better or should make broad decisions. Yet our society still operates under those who think they know better and make decisions for others. Bad decisions. Just as we are living in the most individualistic society, yet the time when people are the least individual they have ever been. Most people's lifestyle is a carbon copy. Their thoughts those of others. That is natural, but we live in a society that pretends it is unnatural and not actually what's happening.

The system that works is one that is in line with nature. That is one that is top-down. Monarchy. Some may say, but what about the terrible past. I don't want to go back to a time where there was no running water and widespread death. As if you can't return to the past without returning to the exact same conditions of the past. There are a number of very stable monarchies today with high standards of living. They operate through authority that does not need to be enforced with brute force. The West uses more brute force. None of them are riddled with the same decay as the West. They enforce a society with a natural structure and morality. You can get on with your life, without the swirl and acrimony of politics. Monarchy is inherently right wing.
 
The best system can't be one that has always gone further left. This is probably the worst system.

The problem is not the system, but implementing it. In the West many people believe that most people should have an opinion and have a say on how things work. To get to the narrowband of the healthy environment in which people should live requires for those ideas to go. There are a number of things that need to be in place for you to have a society that can continue between generations. You can't have a situation in which the masses can vote to break that up, which is what's happened. People voted to break the building blocks of society, because it felt pleasurable to do so at the time.

Take the protests against the Ukraine invasion in Russia. They were broken up very quickly and snuffed out. Western countries don't have the ability to do that. Or say UAE where its never explained what the law is, there is no heavy hand knocking things over, people just know how to behave. It's close to the opposite if the West.

The god of the West has been liberty. To be told what to do is a sin. But as it's panned out we are told what to do, more and more each year, as liberalism has matasrisised into its final form - leftism. Now liberty is only a god if its useful for the left.

Seemingly all traditional societies had quite a narrowband of moral laws, a top-down nature. There is no society without this. People will separate into different groups at odds with each other. Most people can't regulate themselves. They need to be in someone else's system that has pathways for them to make good decisions. Instead today we allow people to go ferral and pick up whatever ideas they can. Along with many poisiouness prompts from the red media, LGBT etc. That this truth be uttered is an anathema to our society. A society that has no belief that others know better or should make broad decisions. Yet our society still operates under those who think they know better and make decisions for others. Bad decisions. Just as we are living in the most individualistic society, yet the time when people are the least individual they have ever been. Most people's lifestyle is a carbon copy. Their thoughts those of others. That is natural, but we live in a society that pretends it is unnatural and not actually what's happening.

The system that works is one that is in line with nature. That is one that is top-down. Monarchy. Some may say, but what about the terrible past. I don't want to go back to a time where there was no running water and widespread death. As if you can't return to the past without returning to the exact same conditions of the past. There are a number of very stable monarchies today with high standards of living. They operate through authority that does not need to be enforced with brute force. The West uses more brute force. None of them are riddled with the same decay as the West. They enforce a society with a natural structure and morality. You can get on with your life, without the swirl and acrimony of politics. Monarchy is inherently right wing.
Just posted something on the Germans gone insane thread on the German "Basic Law" which prohibits any democratic change by the eternity clause.

By unchangeable law, Germany is social liberal state. That means there is no political solution. E.g. by eternal law Germany need to take care of political refugees.

Voting will never make a change to the country as the politicians have very limited power.

I think it's a spiritual war, and when the spirit changes in the people, the system of rule might change. And the spirit can only change by people that speak truth. Probably these people are not members of one of the large political parties.

So no, probably best to spend as little time as possible on who to vote for. Whatever you do these people are a waste of time. They are not there for you.
 
In addition to my post, here is your Republican politician who supports gay rights.

HrPAo5F.png
 
The system that works is one that is in line with nature. That is one that is top-down. Monarchy. Some may say, but what about the terrible past. I don't want to go back to a time where there was no running water and widespread death. As if you can't return to the past without returning to the exact same conditions of the past. There are a number of very stable monarchies today with high standards of living. They operate through authority that does not need to be enforced with brute force. The West uses more brute force. None of them are riddled with the same decay as the West. They enforce a society with a natural structure and morality. You can get on with your life, without the swirl and acrimony of politics. Monarchy is inherently right wing.
I am also completely disillusioned with democracy and liberalism. The problem is, in a monarchy, how would you ensure you get a good monarch? Sure you could get someone who really cares about his people and works to help them. But you could also get someone like Louis XV, who was corrupt and impoverished France, leading to the French revolution. Or King Henry VIII of England, who beheaded his wives and started his own state church just because his fragile ego couldn't handle the fact that he was incapable of siring boys.

What mechanism would there be in a monarchy to ensure a strong leader, someone who the people would accept and not foment rebellion?
 
Yes. Not that I have much hope voting will fix things, but it can buy time and more importantly for the sake of this question costs no money and close to no time.
 
I used to be very active in the populist-right movement about 5 years ago. But then during corona I realized that democracy as a whole is a fundamental scam purported to pull off a smokescreen, a mirage/imagination that you have influence while you have not, while at the same time you're fighting others. So in other words, you voting make you seem able to change something while from North-Korea to Africa to the US to Europe to China - from far right to far left governments and all inbetween - when the order came everybody locked down. So yeah it's kinda blackpilled maybe on the topic of democracy, but if it in itself is a control mechanism to cause discord between groups and make you chase a carrot while the system as a whole is just moving on unwavering as designed on the drawing board, then I don't see any purpose in engaging with it. I haven't voted in the last 3-4 elections or so and moved from a guy who checked out the polls every Sunday to literally not knowing who the ministers are and having to guess which parties are in office, so little do I follow it. I do like the point about local though, I see some benefit there possibly although focusing on community initiatives and creating strong bonds and communities will probably yield more fruitful results. Lastly with regards to the money, yeah it's an argument to make them work for their scam and make it a bit more difficult, but they print the money anyways and after all the money either comes from you as the tax payer so they gonna get it back from you one way or another, or they just put the printers on at the FED or other central banks. So eventually there's no ''they'' in ''they'' are spending the money as the government, it's me and you after all anyway.
 
I am also completely disillusioned with democracy and liberalism. The problem is, in a monarchy, how would you ensure you get a good monarch? Sure you could get someone who really cares about his people and works to help them. But you could also get someone like Louis XV, who was corrupt and impoverished France, leading to the French revolution. Or King Henry VIII of England, who beheaded his wives and started his own state church just because his fragile ego couldn't handle the fact that he was incapable of siring boys.

What mechanism would there be in a monarchy to ensure a strong leader, someone who the people would accept and not foment rebellion?
You're totally right, you show the imperfection of all systems. Murder is a favorite one in history. This though leads to many problems. Blackmail of the king. Do we believe the Jews will accept the king? So very quickly we see a large protection apparatus for the king. And it has the same inherent essence that leads to dictatorship; Man with too much power.

Guess that's the conclusion for me, human rule leads to abuse. Therefore balances of power are essential. This though is hard to capture in rules. I guess the only option is a ruler under God.

Today we have state dictatorship; in most western countries controlling 50% of the GDP by taxing and money printing, even in the most oppressive monarchies we didn't see those numbers of control.

The court of justice is dependent on state money, education is, police, army, health services are all dependent on the state rulers.

The state is too big today, as the businessmen were too powerful end of the 19th century. I can not think of a perfect system. We can only unite in God.
 
I am also completely disillusioned with democracy and liberalism. The problem is, in a monarchy, how would you ensure you get a good monarch? Sure you could get someone who really cares about his people and works to help them. But you could also get someone like Louis XV, who was corrupt and impoverished France, leading to the French revolution. Or King Henry VIII of England, who beheaded his wives and started his own state church just because his fragile ego couldn't handle the fact that he was incapable of siring boys.

What mechanism would there be in a monarchy to ensure a strong leader, someone who the people would accept and not foment rebellion?

I'm sort of in the same boat. After a decade in Canada of people applauding more and more gibbs, no one seems to have any sense of the whole or long term. Plato recognized it 2000+ years ago that ultimately democracy fails when the bottom 51% realize they can vote themselves the wealth of the top 49%,

I'm mentioned it before, but in my opinion the best form, which as far as I can tell has never been tried, would be a form of "skin in the game democracy". It was sort of mentioned in the movie Starship troopers where you had to serve before you could vote.

No one is born with a right to vote, but everyone has the ability to. This however comes on the back of 5 years civil service, military service, police work - *something* that makes people realize that your small say in how the system gets run goes beyond "what's good for me now". One problem with that though, is similar to land owning elite in Rome being able to vote, dynasties can form. No son of a Roman land owner wouldn't get a vote. If your family is rich, it's far easier to stomach a tour in a low conflict zone (see GWB) than if you're 16 with a kid and you're whole future depends on getting through the other side. The other thing would be the development of an almost caste system. Citizens, like the police, would back other citizens, and abuses towards "residents" or whatever they call non-voting people born there, could be overlooked. When there's a powerful clique, power seems to invariably corrupt at some point. While it's gone way overboard, the marginalized definitely need a say, because some people are genuinely born with a bad hand. Otherwise the darker parts of humanity emerge as in war and slavery people thinking they can have whatever women they can physically overpower.
 

I am also completely disillusioned with democracy and liberalism. The problem is, in a monarchy, how would you ensure you get a good monarch? Sure you could get someone who really cares about his people and works to help them. But you could also get someone like Louis XV, who was corrupt and impoverished France, leading to the French revolution. Or King Henry VIII of England, who beheaded his wives and started his own state church just because his fragile ego couldn't handle the fact that he was incapable of siring boys.

What mechanism would there be in a monarchy to ensure a strong leader, someone who the people would accept and not foment rebellion?

I think one aspect is that you are referring to the past. Life is much more settled now, than it's ever been. In the monarchies that exists today, which could you say are oppressive? Or which can't you get on with a normal life? Or have SJW mafias harassing you at work?

Any system will shift through phases. But democracy is the only system that we've seen the wholesale destruction of societies, to such an extent that they will never be able to recover.
 
I think one aspect is that you are referring to the past. Life is much more settled now, than it's ever been. In the monarchies that exists today, which could you say are oppressive? Or which can't you get on with a normal life? Or have SJW mafias harassing you at work?
There aren't many absolute monarchies out there today. I can think of Saudi Arabia and Oman, neither of which are bastions of human rights. You can go to prison just for posting something on Twitter the sultan doesn't like. Absolute monarchy's weak point is that you are always subject to the consequences of one man's fallen nature, with no checks or balances to protect you.

Any system will shift through phases. But democracy is the only system that we've seen the wholesale destruction of societies, to such an extent that they will never be able to recover.
But what led to modern democracy? That was dissatisfaction with past monarchies, and the abuses carried out against the people.

I think we need a new system, but I don't know what exactly that would look like. Perhaps it could be an amalgam of kinds, retaining only some aspects of democracy. But certainly we can't enfranchise just anyone to vote, there should be qualifications. And really I think the only just system would need to be based on Christian values, placing God at the heart of its purpose.
 
I think we need a new system, but I don't know what exactly that would look like. Perhaps it could be an amalgam of kinds, retaining only some aspects of democracy. But certainly we can't enfranchise just anyone to vote, there should be qualifications. And really I think the only just system would need to be based on Christian values, placing God at the heart of its purpose.
Look into Italy and Germany during most of the 1930s.
 
Back
Top