Does not voting in a Democracy forfeit your right to complain?

Originally Posted by BillSeurer
(speaking of the US here). I get so tired of people complaining that there are only two choices (Democrat or Republican) and when I point out there are many choices they respond with "well, only two that can win". Gah! They've bought into what the two main parties are pushing. Others *can* win but only if people start voting for them (see Governor Jesse Ventura of Minnesota). Even when they don't win they can make a big difference in both the election and what comes afterward (see Ross Perot).

That can lead to some unpleasant unintended consequences, though. By voting for Perot back in 92, I had a hand in starting 8 years of Slick Willie (admittedly, Clinton turned out far less damaging to the country than Obummer, but still). Sure, it might be the right thing to do, but it's nearly impossible to maintain momentum from election to election.

Besides, it's not just the two main parties that are stomping out other voices. Just look at the hatchet job done by the media on the Tea Party. I expect folks on the other side could cite the abuse Nader took from the media back when he had his best performance with the Green party (2000?) as a similar smear job.

Originally Posted by Pladio
I don't think not voting is forfeiting your right to complain. You have the right to vote in most countries, not the obligation to vote.
This means you are still allowed to complain afterwards as you have the right to speak and think too in most countries.


By most, I'm talking about Western-type democracies.

If you've got free speech, then you have the right to complain. The thread title wording would probably be more accurate if it replaced "right" with "justification". Kinda quibbling over semantics, though. [insert impressive Latin here]

Originally Posted by dteowner
Besides, it's not just the two main parties that are stomping out other voices. Just look at the hatchet job done by the media on the Tea Party. I expect folks on the other side could cite the abuse Nader took from the media back when he had his best performance with the Green party (2000?) as a similar smear job.

The Tea Party "Patriots" deserve whatever scorn is heaped on them. They are the ones who have driven the Republican party into ruin.

Originally Posted by dteowner
Democracy actually refers to "a government by the people" (Does a dictionary count as an impressive textbook?).

And how does that mean the need to follow a bureaucratic system?

Originally Posted by dteowner
If the ballot box has no real impact, then you don't have "a government by the people", which means you don't actually have a functional democracy. Thus, your initial limiting criteria voids the hypothesis before it draws its first breath.

It proves the point perfectly. If the ballot box have no real impact, it's not democracy. The people must then govern the society by other means and to speak out is an essential part of it.

Originally Posted by dteowner
Well, this kinda came out of left field and doesn't even have post history to support it. Hopefully, it made you feel better, though. Glad I could be of service, but I'm afraid the teacher doesn't get a juicy red apple for erroneous insults.

You uncritically defend the system to be infallible.

Originally Posted by BillSeurer
The Tea Party "Patriots" deserve whatever scorn is heaped on them. They are the ones who have driven the Republican party into ruin.

Obviously, I would beg to differ. I would say the evangelicals have drug the party further from the mainstream than the Tea Party ever did. That said, part of the problem is that the Tea Party became far too large of an umbrella and suffered for it. The group started as fiscal conservative hawks. Nothing more, nothing less. While they had opinions on many issues, everything they actually talked about tied back to government finances (taxes and spending). In order to gain numbers (and thus, a bigger voice), they started bringing in quite a range of folks from the right fringe—"militia" gun owners, immigration extremists, evangelicals, isolationist libertarians. That cost them their focus and also made it much easier for the media and the lefties to tar the entire group as a bunch of stupid bigots.

Originally Posted by JemyM
And how does that mean the need to follow a bureaucratic system?

You're the one that introduced that line of thought, not me. Isn't that some sort of dried wheat stalks, perfesser? The unfortunate fact is that the very definition refers to government and your grand pronouncement omits it. You're more than welcome to send a strongly worded email to Webster if you like. Let me know how that goes for you. I can't hardly give this damn apple away if you don't get yer head in the game.

Originally Posted by JemyM
It proves the point perfectly. If the ballot box have no real impact, it's not democracy. The people must then govern the society by other means and to speak out is an essential part of it.

So you admit that your impressive expository has dick to do with democracy. We're talking about democracy here, perfesser. It's right there in the thread title. Anything after the part I bolded is moot because, by your own words, you aren't talking about the topic anymore. All that moot stuff sounded very impressive, though. Perhaps a slice of juicy red apple for that.

Originally Posted by JemyM
You uncritically defend the system to be infallible.

Say what? I'm quite confident that if there's anyone on this whole forum that doesn't think the system is infallible, that would be yours truly. After all, I'm certainly not the one always asking for more and more of the system and holding it up as some paragon of virtue and goodness. No rainbows and unicorns here, thank you very much. I can't even give you a rotten apple for tripe like that, perfesser.