Right Not to Vote and Real Social Change

Today is election day, and there are a lot of feelings and thoughts, public and private.

“Have you done your duty as a citizen and voted?”

I don't have to vote. It’s not a duty. I have the right to vote, like I have the right to bear arms or right to etcetera… If I don’t fancy a candidate, I do not have to fulfill some obligation to vote pragmatic lesser evil. 
    There is a tremendous wave of peer pressure, from the democratic party followers, to vote because newer voters favor a win for the name of democracy.If I choose not to involve myself, why should I be vilified? The Republican followers hold a common belief 'what's mine is mine and I will mock protestors.'
    It’s a bullshit system anyway. Are you really voting for democracy, or just the name for it? There’s radical evil on both sides. Those who understand this 

intuitively understand the ground before my feet. There is a puppeteer agenda, you know this if you know Social Darwinism. All conspiracy and the detailed devils aside with lizard people: The people with the Will to Power will perpetuate their power by whatever means, and write history accordingly.

And here is the Thesis…… Social Change does not occur from voting.

Social Change happens from the minuscule thought-change in individuals and how it spreads. In this instance I call - Microcosm Activation. Thoughts spread like word of mouth through behavior to uplift a Virtue or Ideal that which propels a more important essentialism. There’s too many holes in this ship; it’s time to build a new ship. What is the minuscule thought-change? 
Sociologists speak of Post-Modernism like an elusive marxian utopia, something too far to reach conceptually. This escapism from modern culture comes with a need but not grounded practical change. There is no bridge that takes us there. Framed differently, from a slightly different rationale is the bridge. Post Modernism via microcosm activation, is like building a moving-brickhouse, deconstructing what we think we know at first, each member of society is a brick. Trust is the mold that keeps us to together via New Doctrine/Virtue. 
The New Doctrine is Self-Discovery. This is the transition of becoming part of nature and part of the “I” that which we all obtain inherently(and developed through Insight). A thesis and anti-thesis occurs within us until we reach the Microcosm of necessary change. Swinging back to aforementioned modern right to vote, standing in line to vote for a macrocosm change, a president, even local, only satisfies a immediate urge to particular nationalism.  
    Herds in society, wake up. Something doesn’t magically trickle down through modern administration and you’re “free.” Your station in life feels more comfortable knowing a certain policy is in place? These policies are already handed down through devils in a hierarchy. Those who want and maintain power are more likely to keep it through keenness and cunningness. Do not underestimate the cocaine addicts at the top, who do not care about you. Become the New-New Normal by doing different things. Embark on nomadic thought experiments, risk the call to adventure, and discover the red thread that builds your creative self and connects you to others. I am not Woo-woo. This is necessary. You know it.  
Until we embrace a New-New Normal, you will see more death on the jukebox and in your surrounding personal life. Let’s meet each other half-way.

It did in 2016. And it most certainly does this time. You are in a world war and don’t know it (because that is the kind of war it is).

K: I understand where you are coming from, but I don’t agree with it… voting can
be an agent of change… just as the simple changing of our viewpoint can be
an agent of change…and if enough people change their viewpoints, one by one,
we have change overall…for example, over the last 10 years the viewpoints
of both gay marriage and legalizing drugs has changed… one person at a time…

in my lifetime, it was illegal for a white person to marry a black person,
Loving v. Virginia in 1967…and we have changed viewpoints… one
person at a time, to now include whites being able to marry blacks…
or any color marrying any other color…it doesn’t matter who marries
who in America today… and yet, less then 20 years ago, people were willing
to go to war on that subject…

that is why we must first engage in our own thoughts, to
understand what they are, to know thyself, and then to
overcome them…to examine our beliefs…

what is your existence about?

I say existence is about realizing our possibilities…
but we cannot know our possibilities without first
knowing ourselves and then examining what we hold to be true…

what do you know to be true?

and how have you engaged in knowing thyself?

those are the questions you should be dealing with…

Kropotkin

You are older. This is good. And I half-agree with your response.

Voting, in decades before, highlighted a democratic water-mark for civility. But present milieu the circumstances have changed amidst a social structure breaking down. This is clear, and especially the ideology of American Dream. Think about notions of Horatio Alger. Is it so easy of a journey from rags to riches right now? Does voting, paralleled from societies back then to now have the same cause and effect?

In the past, court cases highlight political change, and this is worth noting. But pluralism in the Western world has become a shit-show, to the point of no return, and we cannot foreseeably depend on our legal precedent system to defend the our democracy further. Can we really “go back to normal” after such a unprecedented situation? The American Constitution is outdated and Amendments need amending. The American System favors Classism, not “free citizens” of all races, classes, statues, gender, etcetera, (and especially more as the middle class breaks.)

In words mentioned from the OP, voting had more potency for change in the uprise of Modernity. But today, in High Modernity, on brink of Post-modernity, our idea of Social Change, needs to change, evolve, so that this living idea of the free individual sustains in this war of Good triumphing over Evil, essential over the unessential.

Thanks for your response.

xhightension: You are older. This is good. And I half-agree with your response.

Voting, in decades before, highlighted a democratic water-mark for civility. But present milieu the circumstances have changed amidst a social structure breaking down. This is clear, and especially the ideology of American Dream. Think about notions of Horatio Alger. Is it so easy of a journey from rags to riches right now? Does voting, paralleled from societies back then to now have the same cause and effect?

In the past, court cases highlight political change, and this is worth noting. But pluralism in the Western world has become a shit-show, to the point of no return, and we cannot foreseeably depend on our legal precedent system to defend the our democracy further. Can we really “go back to normal” after such a unprecedented situation? The American Constitution is outdated and Amendments need amending. The American System favors Classism, not “free citizens” of all races, classes, statues, gender, etcetera, (and especially more as the middle class breaks.)

In words mentioned from the OP, voting had more potency for change in the uprise of Modernity. But today, in High Modernity, on brink of Post-modernity, our idea of Social Change, needs to change, evolve, so that this living idea of the free individual sustains in this war of Good triumphing over Evil, essential over the unessential.
[/quote]
K: two things, thank you for noticing I am older… :-k

and secondly I disagree with the notion that “pluralism in the western world has become
a shit-show, to the point of no return”…

in fact, I would point out, it is “Pluralism” that will become a positive force of
change in the western world… I believe in “pluralism” as oppose to those
who hold to single forces like Nationalism or “white power” or racism or sexism…

we learn from opposing viewpoints… we learn from failure… we learn from
experience…it is from Pluralism that has driven the positive changes of
the last 40 years…from changing viewpoints of going from opposing gay
marriage to laws against drugs… I see how the new Pluralism has created
change for the positive… the old viewpoint is to limit and oppose and
diminish and negate people for holding certain viewpoints… to negate
people because of their skin color or who they love or who they pray to…
that is old school and denies/negates human beings…

pluralism believes in the multiplicity of viewpoints… I can hold to my
views and you can hold to your views and no conflicts can or will appear…

I do not depend upon the legal to defend or attack my viewpoint for
the simple reason the law should not be invested in defending or attacking
viewpoints, the law is about justice… which is the impartial and equal
enforcement of justice…

is the American constitution outdated? I don’t think so…
the far more important document, to my mind anyway, is the Declaration of
Independence… which holds that

“all men are created equal”

and upon that document I build the foundation of my beliefs…
not the constitution…the Declaration of Independence is the
mission statement of America… the constitution is the “How to” of
America…it is the manual of, if this happens, then this happens…

the constitution is really nothing more then a manual of
fixing one’s car or a how to fix one’s sink…that is the constitution,
whereas the declaration is the document that tells us why…
why it is so important that we hold these truths to be self-evident…
not how to repair these truths…

Kropotkin

K: two things, thank you for noticing I am older… :-k

and secondly I disagree with the notion that “pluralism in the western world has become
a shit-show, to the point of no return”…

in fact, I would point out, it is “Pluralism” that will become a positive force of
change in the western world… I believe in “pluralism” as oppose to those
who hold to single forces like Nationalism or “white power” or racism or sexism…

we learn from opposing viewpoints… we learn from failure… we learn from
experience…it is from Pluralism that has driven the positive changes of
the last 40 years…from changing viewpoints of going from opposing gay
marriage to laws against drugs… I see how the new Pluralism has created
change for the positive… the old viewpoint is to limit and oppose and
diminish and negate people for holding certain viewpoints… to negate
people because of their skin color or who they love or who they pray to…
that is old school and denies/negates human beings…

pluralism believes in the multiplicity of viewpoints… I can hold to my
views and you can hold to your views and no conflicts can or will appear…

I do not depend upon the legal to defend or attack my viewpoint for
the simple reason the law should not be invested in defending or attacking
viewpoints, the law is about justice… which is the impartial and equal
enforcement of justice…

is the American constitution outdated? I don’t think so…
the far more important document, to my mind anyway, is the Declaration of
Independence… which holds that

“all men are created equal”

and upon that document I build the foundation of my beliefs…
not the constitution…the Declaration of Independence is the
mission statement of America… the constitution is the “How to” of
America…it is the manual of, if this happens, then this happens…

the constitution is really nothing more then a manual of
fixing one’s car or a how to fix one’s sink…that is the constitution,
whereas the declaration is the document that tells us why…
why it is so important that we hold these truths to be self-evident…
not how to repair these truths…

Kropotkin
[/quote]

Thanks Peter

The real problem with voting is that the probability that your vote will determine the next president ie extremely low. In effect, your vote means nothing. It’s the popular vote that matters, and if you aren’t doing something to influence that, you’re doing nothing but imagining yourself as having some kind of control over who’s running the country you live in.

A much, much smaller government fixes that (thinking of SAM).

Absolutely. The smaller the group, the more sensible the process of voting. And SAM cooperatives, if I recall correctly, have no more than 100 members (which is pretty low.)

But consider a different scenario. Suppose that Joe is a member of group where it is perfectly rational to make decisions by voting. Being unaware of this fact, and unable to come to an agreement with the rest of group, he leaves. The question is: would it then be rational to villify him?

One of the questions posed in the opening post:

I can see why political parties would do it. They need votes.