WHO WILL WIN??? 2012

We'd be much better off if we just excised the working class altogether. It'd be expensive, but barring some service jobs, it's entirely doable. No one likes the working class or wants to be a part of it. We shouldn't be aiding it or trying to ensure its existence we should be destroying it.

But communists would much rather bang hammers and rocks together all day for GLORIOUS WORKER'S PRIDE.

In any case, LeninCat, elections are not decided by the 'ruling class,' they are decided by votes. If you want change, get other people to want it too. Otherwise you need to accept the fact that you're part of an extremely tiny minority and move on.

Your forgetting I define working class as the class that primarly depends on wage or salary in partial exchange for labor for income.

Decided by votes deeply corrupted by money.

I think this is an issue of seperate definitions. Leftists of the radical sort, define the working class as people who don't have any control over the means of production or any serious capital. The capitalist class/ruling class controls serious capital and the means of production. You could argue that there is a lot of special interest groups that are also interfering with the election process as well as capitalist interests. Voting can have a tangible effect on material conditions and create beneficial changes but... it only addresses the symptoms of the system and not the underlying roots.

It is vitally important that you vote. It will have very little effect on anything but it is the most fundamental act in any democratic community. As long as there is an election the candidate who wins the majority of the votes cast will win, no matter how small the turnout. Even if nobody voted there would still be a government. If nobody chooses who forms the government then somebody will simply seize power*. It is very unlikely that such a thing will ever happen in reality. Democratic capitalist societies do not spontaneously mutate into free societies without government or coercion, only in daydreams. The real world is one in which governments grow in power and influence unless checked by democratic pressures to resist such unplanned growth. Government will grow like a cancer if unchecked, it is therefore vitally important that people who care about how government should be checked get involved in the process. If you do not vote you do not deserve any say in what happens around you.

*I however think the only way out of this mess is through revolution. I'm not sure if we are ready for that step, but revolution will have to occur for anarchism to take root

Yeah... He's going to totally ignore that as he always does and rage about it another time...(and I'm starting to get a bit tired of it)

Sure... we all hate the hard working people in our countries...(and look at Lenin's post)

Oh come on. Get over the republican sounding raging.

Yes it's ultimately votes that decide who gets to lead in a democracy, but extremely rich still have a disproportionately large amount of influence. This could(and should) be restricted by legislation.
Minorities should have a say in a government too, otherwise it's just the tyranny of the majority. With the current state of affairs in the US(the two party system) you will have a large amount of voters who feel like they have the choice between a turd and a douche.(if you get the reference you're cool)

Edit: Posting failure :-(
I like you're stance on voting, however, I do believe that it is more important than you make it out to be. Still, people need to vote if they are serious about change. A violent revolution in the United States would be almost impossible. Most likely it would be extremely unpopular: recalling that we've never had a revolution, ever. But still: VOTE! IT IS IMPORTANT!

Edit: I mean a revolution under the Constitution

Good sir. You have vary odd taste in music.

True that they aren't decided by the ruling class, but the prime ministers and presidents of this world are. When was the last US President who wasn't a millionaire? The majority of UK Prime Ministers were educated in the most prestigious universities namely Oxford and Cambridge, Oxbridge being the portmanteau of said universities. "(O)f the 55 Prime Ministers to date, 41 studied at Oxbridge, 11 did not go to university, and only 3, Earl Russell, Neville Chamberlain, and Gordon Brown, went to other universities (Edinburgh, Birmingham and Edinburgh respectively)". Not to mention the Bullingdon club of which the Mayor of London, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister all belonged. "The Club's modus operandi has often been to book a private dining room under an assumed name, as most restaurateurs are wary of the Club's reputation for causing considerable drunken damage during the course of dinner."

It doesn't matter who you vote for, the people aren't representative of you, they don't represent your views and even if they did, power changes people. I think the best solution would be a constitutional direct democracy (to prevent a minority being privileged or punished (minority meaning gender, race, religion, not how privileged they are)). A constitutional direct democracy would engage people more in the democratic process; it would allow politicians, or the middle men, to be cut out, solving issues of parties not delivering on promises, and parties not representing the nuanced views of the public. I would love to hear some arguments against direct democracy other than people are stupid and that it would be costly/time consuming/risky.

Marxist definitions are hardly proper. A very small, very extreme group of people like to speak with the rhetoric that LeninCat is. I don't know why I should be expected to debate on their terms.

No ethical person can claim to support the existence of the working class. It's an odious, cancerous growth on the underbelly of society that we should do everything in our power to excise.

So what? My point is that voting is incredibly important, far more so than any amount of influence a Fortune 500 company can exert.

Minorities have a say in government. Fringe ideologues do not. But they're free to voice their ideas in public, unlike in some other more 'progressive' countries.

I don't understand what that has to do with the topic at hand. Seems like you're just trying to take pot shots at the US without understanding it.

No, you're not. It's far more likely that you're a 14 year old than that.

And electoral reform is an issue that's hotly debated today. In any case, it's total nonsense to claim that voting does not influence elections. In fact, voting is the only thing that can directly determine the outcome of an election.

What is your point? That rich people are bad? Because there's no prohibition on the poor running for office. If you're looking to correct any perceived faults here, you don't do so as a reformer. You'd be doing entirely new social engineering, not looking to correct anything existing wrongs, but to create what you see as right. Which is fine. But don't claim to see injustice where it doesn't exist. Doing so makes you no better than a common pinko.

Yes, it does. It matters quite a lot, in fact. Believe it or not, elected officials don't just sit around and cackle at their constituencies all day. And they aren't some manufactured stoics, who exist to rip off the people they're chosen to represent. If someone is getting into politics, chances are that they could be making a lot more money doing something else. Whether it's due to a sense of legacy-building or out of genuine ideological interest, the people chosen to represent us actually do have agendas in office. When they campaign on certain promises and those promises aren't fulfilled, then there's nothing to stop their constituents from throwing them out.

Who is 'you?' Because it's highly unlikely that people would vote for someone who they didn't think was an adequate representative of them in government. I think you're confusing the ideological minority that you identify with with the actual voting public.

Says who? I mean it's never going to be a 1:1 matchup with any candidate, but I find it extremely difficult to believe that anyone but a cynical fringe ideologue cannot find a candidate who supports at least most of their views.

And if that change is negative, then their constituents deal with them accordingly.

The average person is only maybe politically informed enough to identify with a party. A mere fraction of those might actually be aware of what that identity really means. And a mere fraction of those are aware of what that identity means in context of their political system. And only the smallest of fractions of those are motivated enough to do anything about it.

The voting public does not expect their elected officials to be mere delegates, but expects them to act as trustees. To act with expert knowledge, in the best (and not necessarily most popular) interests of their constituency. And more importantly, to act with the political knowledge that enables their society to function beyond the local scale.

I'd love to see some arguments against the Holocaust that aren't about why genocide is bad. I'd love to hear some arguments against the death penalty other than that it kills people and costs money.

Do these arguments exist? Sure. But they don't address the main issue with the subject matter. The two primary cons to direct democracy are, surprise surprise, that people are stupid/uninformed and that implementing direct democracy is expensive, time-consuming, and risky. You can't just discount them off-hand and expect to be taken seriously.

The last rags to riches President was Richard Nixon, and the UK doesn't elect it's executive, so you have a point there. The founding fathers intended for the President to not be one of the common Americans: at the time most Americans didn't know how to read, so it made sense. Also, the felt that those upper class citizens would be better equipped to handle the job of running a large, federal-style government. A direct democracy is impossible and irresponsible: the US is a country of 300 million with a heavy emphasis on federalism.

You could at least stop using that argument all the time when you are debating with socialists. You often say this to socialists on the forum.

We need a working class. It doesn't have to suck to be a part of it.

And I agree with you on that. However the influence of "a Fortune 500 company" is large in elections and you could argue that senators and governors are being "bought" by the companies. This is not okay...
It's funny that you say votes are so important when a vote for a minority-party is (pretty much) useless in the US.

I lol'ed... The only parties with seats in the senate etc. in the US are the Democrats and the Republicans. How can two parties possibly represent the whole population?! The fact is that other parties don't have a chance because of the current system. People vote on one of the two bigs because their vote would be "useless" elsewhere.
I would like to remind you that it was you who left the free-speech discussion...

This is not only about the US, but the first past the post system that I have a major problem with. I actually like Obama somewhat, but I still think he's too right-leaning.

Well it's from South Park and that show is awesome... Are you saying I'm 14?
Also, do you support first past the post or proportional representation?

Not as far as human beings are concerned.

Yes it does. Working class jobs generally fall into the soul-crushing categories of either manual labor, mindless repetition, or a combination of both.

No man should be subjected to that.

Working class (Via sociology) is classified by income which is a combined of below 40,000 a year.

Point being?

That's a lot of people, perhaps even a majority (unless your dollars are worth less than I thought).
Of course, saying that, do we really need the majority of people? They are after all, a foul heaving mass of unwashed aspirant non-entities with less to look forward to than they'd like to think.
Speaking of which, I suddenly feel kinda worthless

Quite. Things would be so much better if we all worked in marketing or public relations. Then we just get immigrants, machines and pond scum to do all the hard stuff.

The point being is that is the working class.

And their income is relevant to the nature of their work how?

Hey that's just how we classified it in sociology class.