I haven’t said it because it’s obvious. But you’re talking about a group, and I’m talking about myself. I don’t REALLY care if you dislike politicians, Americans or whatever - I do care if you dislike me simply because of what I do for a living. I don’t think that’s fair, especially considering that I’m really the only CSM member whose real life profession is widely known.
I want to be judged as a person by what I do, not by what someone else has done in the past somewhere else. That’s all.
I am not talking about the past only, FFS! Again you do not acknowledge corruption is a big problem in politics. The current situation is that corruption in politics is a worldwide problem and it is a growing problem. Are you personally corrupt? … I don’t know because I don’t know what you do, neither do I give a ■■■■ because this is not about you.
And why is it we know? You used it to get ■■■■■■■ elected in the CSM!
Maybe he isnt, but he is friends with someone being sent to prison for being corrupt, he says.
I keep telling you guys…
Here, some nice reading for you.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9248.00089
I know, but we are massive suckers and theres too many bodyguards around my local Minister For Re-education.
Uh, it’s literally about me because people were attacking me personally for what I do for a living.
I think it’s hilarious that you think I have no idea about corruption in politics, when I’ve said more than once in here that I’m well acquainted with it. I’ve got more than one political colleague and one personal friend who’ve been accused, convicted and at least one has gone to jail.
Again, I don’t really care what your view is on the profession, I care that you’re judging me personally because of it instead of judging me by what I do. You think I’m a bad CSM because I’m in a null bloc, or because I disagree about game mechanics, that’s fine. You think I’m a bad CSM or a bad person because of my RL job? That makes me sad.
I have no doubt that the people in your profession run the full gamut from honestly trying to improve things to lining their own pockets at the expense of others. Where you are on that scale I cannot say because I don’t know you personally, nor have I seen anything that would place you in a specific place on it.
Unfortunately your profession is one that many view with suspicion and is often seen as dishonest by the layman; some of that is down to the fact that the seedier side of politics is what makes headlines, while the more respectable side of it does not. Some of the more “colourful” people in your profession, and this isn’t restricted to the US, don’t help to improve the general perception of politics either.
I can’t speak for others but I have tried to not to make it personal, instead trying to concentrate on the general perception.
Sad truth there always seems more people complain about the result of a vote than actually bother to vote
Voter apathy is something that political systems need to address, I would hazard a guess that many don’t vote because the results make them feel that their vote is worthless.
Their vote is worthless. It creates a lot of cognitive dissonance for people to convince themselves that they should vote anyway.
Voter suppression is much more of a problem in the U.S. than voter apathy.
People who aren’t going to vote, aren’t going to vote. But when you remove literally millions of people who WANT TO VOTE from the rolls, you have a serious systemic problem. Add to that shutting down polling places so people have to travel for hours and stand in eight hour lines just to cast a ballot, and you might as well just have the establishment overlords announce the winner and save everyone having to take a day off work.
This is also true, I brought up targeted disenfranchisement of the electorate earlier in the thread as well as the problem of the electoral college having some delegates that are unrepresentative of the areas they control the vote for, because those areas are not part of the US as such but wholly controlled territories and the vote of the people who live in those areas is ineligible for general elections.
Funny thing is, disenfranchisement electorally due to location is a very real thing in UK voting too.
I didn’t know that location based disenfranchisement was still a thing in the UK, I was under the impression that we had gotten rid of that shite nearly 200 years ago; although it may well be that the reform of 1835 only applies to the mainland UK. I do know that other countries do disenfranchisement based on whether or not you’re a member of the right “tribe” and other similar criteria.*
*Trying to stay within the rules here.
Nah its due to who will and will not stand in a particular Province, and that province is bundled into one bloc that most certainly does not reflect the actual votes cast.
Think of a certain acronym similar to this that Big Island voters only recently realised existed;
AHH them buggers.
When your options are to elect either Bad or Worse many people will not bother to vote anymore. Not clever of course, but understandable.
Is all of this necessary?
