Trump threatens to withhold endorsement for Republicans who oppose his rescissions package

[PAF]

Legitimacy is when the government has fair elections and when they represent the will and the best interests of the people.

Whose will and whose interest? Your own? Agree to legitimately forfeit your own principles and self-determination for the sake of the many?

If the government is fucking our kids then it doesnt matter how many votes they got.

Trusting strangers who stand on a podium with a sales pitch, to represent other people/corporate/donor interests you, with your kids. Vote harder, even if/when the pitch is eloquently improved on. It's for the sake of the many, after all.

Money makes the world go round. Except you only get what's leftover.

 

[CaptUSA]

In 2014, only 36.7% of eligible voters cast a ballot. It was a mid-year election and Republicans picked up some seats.

Sometimes they'll say low voter turnout is indicative of illegitimate government but that designation is reserved only for countries that we don't like.

Exactly.

In 2014, only 36.7% of eligible voters cast a ballot. It was a mid-year election and Republicans picked up some seats. Lowest turnout since 1942.

As I recall, many of us were hoping it signaled that people didn't trust the process or the government and the whole thing was a sham. But that wasn't the narrative at all. They said it was "dark money" and "negative advertising" that drove down turnout. They also blamed "barriers to voting" which led to another easing of voter requirements. The Democrats blamed the lame duck Obama for not driving their base harder.

It was a stark lesson for those who learned it. They don't need our votes for legitimacy. Like you said, that only works on other countries. If you think not voting will rob them of legitimacy, the evidence proves otherwise. It may clear your conscience, but unfortunately, it's not an effective strategy.

 

[nikcers]

Whose will and whose interest? Your own? Agree to legitimately forfeit your own principles and self-determination for the sake of the many?



Trusting strangers who stand on a podium with a sales pitch, to represent other people/corporate/donor interests you, with your kids. Vote harder, even if/when the pitch is eloquently improved on. It's for the sake of the many, after all.

Money makes the world go round. Except you only get what's leftover.

I agree to live in a rules based relationship with other people.

Its the compromise I make so I choose to cooperate with other people because its more profitable than war.

Politics is therefore war by other means. I trust nobody but God. That's the American motto.

"IN GOD WE TRUST"

 

[PAF]

It can be - but it's a signal that produces a lot of false positives (especially at scale).

Suppose the following:

• Smith, Jones, and Davis all agree that Policy A is a Really Good Thing™ and Policy B is a Very Bad Thing®
• Candidate X supports A & B, while Candidate Y opposes A & B
• Smith votes for X because X supports A (which is more important to Smith than issue B)
• Jones votes for Y because Y opposes B (which is more important to Jones than issue A)
• Davis doesn't vote, because X supports B and Y opposes A (issues A & B being equally important to Davis)

Smith, Jones, and Davis merely expressed/endorsed their subjective preferences relative to A & B. Regardless of which candidate wins, defending the position that any of Smith, Jones, and/or Davis somehow "consented" (or even just "signaled" consent) to B is untenable. (And it becomes even more absurd as the possible combinations of candidates and/or policies increases.)

The tendency to reduce these complexities down to grotesque oversimplifications such as "voting is consent" or "not voting is consent" is just one of the reasons I loathe and despise democracy (and its results/consequences).

True - and that's yet another reason to loathe and despise democracy.

I don't vote democrat because I oppose DEI and domestic welfare.

I don't vote republican because I oppose the Police-State and corporate welfare.

Ron Pauls and me will never "win" because nobody would get welfare. Especially when the two above, one hand feeds the other.

And if I made it even more confusing for the dear reader, it's their problem, not mine.

So there.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Sometimes they'll say low voter turnout is indicative of illegitimate government but that designation is reserved only for countries that we don't like.

Otherwise yea, state media will tell you it's because people are satisfied with the status quo. But real people can sometimes see through that bullshit.

All else being equal, there's less opportunities for the government to claim legitimacy and be believed, if you don't vote

In 2014, only 36.7% of eligible voters cast a ballot. It was a mid-year election and Republicans picked up some seats. Lowest turnout since 1942.

As I recall, many of us were hoping it signaled that people didn't trust the process or the government and the whole thing was a sham. But that wasn't the narrative at all. They said it was "dark money" and "negative advertising" that drove down turnout. They also blamed "barriers to voting" which led to another easing of voter requirements. The Democrats blamed the lame duck Obama for not driving their base harder.

It was a stark lesson for those who learned it. They don't need our votes for legitimacy. Like you said, that only works on other countries. If you think not voting will rob them of legitimacy, the evidence proves otherwise. It may clear your conscience, but unfortunately, it's not an effective strategy.

↓↓↓

Compulsory Voting in Australia [PDF here]

From which (bold emphasis added):

Legitimacy

Proponents of compulsory voting argue that a parliament elected by a compulsory vote more accurately reflects the will of the electorate.

As electorates have nearly as practicable the same number of electors, each Member of Parliament is elected by the majority decision of the same number of electors as any other MP.

In a voluntary system, the turnout could vary significantly from electorate to electorate.

In the UK elections in May 2005, turnout varied from 74.6% in Dorset West to 41.5% in Liverpool Riverside.

By contrast, the turnout of all but 2 electorates in the Australian elections in October 2004 was over 90% (the exceptions were Kalgoorlie with 83.53% and Lingiari with 77.71%, both covering remote areas with transient populations).

The legitimacy of a government formed by a voluntary turnout could also be questioned. In the UK in May 2005, Labour won 55% of the seats with 35% of the vote after a turnout of 61.4% (in other words, 21% of the total possible electorate delivered 55% of the seats in the House of Commons).
​

You must be forced to vote - because we can't have people questioning the legitimacy of government, now, can we?

LOL

 

[nikcers]

In 2014, only 36.7% of eligible voters cast a ballot. It was a mid-year election and Republicans picked up some seats.

Exactly.

In 2014, only 36.7% of eligible voters cast a ballot. It was a mid-year election and Republicans picked up some seats. Lowest turnout since 1942.

As I recall, many of us were hoping it signaled that people didn't trust the process or the government and the whole thing was a sham. But that wasn't the narrative at all. They said it was "dark money" and "negative advertising" that drove down turnout. They also blamed "barriers to voting" which led to another easing of voter requirements. The Democrats blamed the lame duck Obama for not driving their base harder.

It was a stark lesson for those who learned it. They don't need our votes for legitimacy. Like you said, that only works on other countries. If you think not voting will rob them of legitimacy, the evidence proves otherwise. It may clear your conscience, but unfortunately, it's not an effective strategy.

Thats not how it works in a republic.

We dont force people to vote and we vote as a people.

My state voted for Trump. Therefore thats the president we voted for.

Even if my state didnt vote for Trump if the United States elects Trump then they are still the legitimate president as long as the election is fair.

Originally we didnt even let most people vote. We let the head of the household vote and only people who could support themselves and werent dependent on other people and even then we only voted for the person who gets to vote not the person who we voted for.

We are much more of a democracy but we still have a republic form of government.

 

[TheTexan]

As I recall, many of us were hoping it signaled that people didn't trust the process or the government and the whole thing was a sham. But that wasn't the narrative at all. They said it was "dark money" and "negative advertising" that drove down turnout. They also blamed "barriers to voting" which led to another easing of voter requirements. The Democrats blamed the lame duck Obama for not driving their base harder.

The fact that many of you were hoping that it would be a signal, proves that I am right that it is a signal. It was a signal to you, and to the "many of us" that you're referring to.

I certainly know it's a signal for me. The high voter turnout in this country absolutely signals to me that a lot of people are consenting. Yea, a lot of it's false positives, but a lot of it isn't. If voter turnout plummeted to the single digits, it would certainly be a completely different signal to me. (Regardless of the "narrative")

It was a stark lesson for those who learned it. They don't need our votes for legitimacy. Like you said, that only works on other countries. If you think not voting will rob them of legitimacy, the evidence proves otherwise. It may clear your conscience, but unfortunately, it's not an effective strategy.

They may not need our votes for legitimacy but they absolutely do need votes for legitimacy. They can't believably claim to be a representative democracy without votes.

Governments aren't typically in the habit of bragging about low voter turnout. They have copes prepared for that scenario but those are coping mechanisms. They brag about high voter turnout.

 

[CaptUSA]

The fact that many of you were hoping that it would be a signal, proves that I am right that it is a signal. It was a signal to you, and to the "many of us" that you're referring to.

I certainly know it's a signal for me. The high voter turnout in this country absolutely signals to me that a lot of people are consenting. Yea, a lot of it's false positives, but a lot of it isn't. If voter turnout plummeted to the single digits, it would certainly be a completely different signal to me.



They may not need our votes for legitimacy but they absolutely do need votes for legitimacy. They can't believably claim to be a representative democracy without votes.

Governments aren't typically in the habit of bragging about low voter turnout. They have copes prepared for that scenario but those are coping mechanisms. They brag about high voter turnout.

2 points:
First, when I see high voter turnout and the incumbent person or party loses, that signals to me that people did NOT consent to the status quo. They came out to signal their preference against the current government. (We can quibble about the differences or similarities between them, but the voter preferences seem clear to me)

Secondly, in 2014, they got only got a third of voters to cast a ballot and yet they still claim to be a representative republic or democracy. In theory, I suppose, if they only got 1% of the people to cast a ballot, some may question the legitimacy, but that assumption seems reserved for theory. Even if it could be accomplished (highly unlikely in itself), my guess is that the winners would still claim legitimacy and they'd find all sorts of excuses to retain their power. IOW, their power isn't derived from votes - only which person or party that gets to wield that power.

 

[nikcers]

2 points:
First, when I see high voter turnout and the incumbent person or party loses, that signals to me that people did NOT consent to the status quo. They came out to signal their preference against the current government. (We can quibble about the differences or similarities between them, but the voter preferences seem clear to me)

Secondly, in 2014, they got only got a third of voters to cast a ballot and yet they still claim to be a representative republic or democracy. In theory, I suppose, if they only got 1% of the people to cast a ballot, some may question the legitimacy, but that assumption seems reserved for theory. Even if it could be accomplished (highly unlikely in itself), my guess is that the winners would still claim legitimacy and they'd find all sorts of excuses to retain their power. IOW, their power isn't derived from votes - only which person or party that gets to wield that power.

When we elected the tea party and they shut down the government that was a rejection of the status quo.

That was the revolutionary act where the government that was elected represented the will of the people and they collectively said no.

The fact that we live in a country with a government and that we can still tell the government no means that there is consent.

Its not consent when you cant tell your government no.

 

[TheTexan]

2 points:
First, when I see high voter turnout and the incumbent person or party loses, that signals to me that people did NOT consent to the status quo. They came out to signal their preference against the current government. (We can quibble about the differences or similarities between them, but the voter preferences seem clear to me)

Pretty much noone consents to the "status quo" and that's not what I'm referring to.

I'm referring to consenting to the system itself. And that's what voting signals consent for.

An absurdly high number* of people consent to the democratic system we live in (e.g., nikcers). Regardless of who wins.

(*and voter turnout is one of the metrics I use to come to this conclusion)

Secondly, in 2014, they got only got a third of voters to cast a ballot and yet they still claim to be a representative republic or democracy. In theory, I suppose, if they only got 1% of the people to cast a ballot, some may question the legitimacy, but that assumption seems reserved for theory.

I'm not gonna bother to do the research but if I did I could probably find quite a few examples of where single digit voter turnouts have happened. Probably mostly in 3rd world countries or ex soviet states.

First world countries have typically been extremely stable so it's understandable that you'd have a normalcy bias.

Even if it could be accomplished (highly unlikely in itself), my guess is that the winners would still claim legitimacy and they'd find all sorts of excuses to retain their power. IOW, their power isn't derived from votes - only which person or party that gets to wield that power.

They'd claim legitimacy but I doubt they'd retain power.

 

[Occam's Banana]

As far "signals of consent" go, noncompliance is a much better metric than voter turnout.

If you see a significant decrease in voter turnout, but no significant decrease in compliance, then what you're looking at seems far more likely to be an increase in complacency, rather than a withdrawal of any kind of "consent".

 

[TheTexan]

As far "signals of consent" go, noncompliance is a much better metric than voter turnout.

If you see a significant decrease in voter turnout, but no significant decrease in compliance, then what you're looking at seems far more likely to be an increase in complacency, rather than a withdrawal of any kind of "consent".

Yea, when they say that low voter turnout can be due to satisfaction with the status quo they aren't always lying.

When low voter turnout is combined with other signals (e.g., disobedience), that's when it begins to signal a lack of consent.

So while low voter turnout doesn't always signal a lack of consent, high voter turnout pretty much always does signal consent. (with some acceptable degree of false positives)

 

[nikcers]

Pretty much noone consents to the "status quo" and that's not what I'm referring to.

I'm referring to consenting to the system itself. And that's what voting signals consent for.

An absurdly high number of people consent to the democratic system we live in (e.g., nikcers). Regardless of who wins.



I'm not gonna bother to do the research but if I did I could probably find quite a few examples of where single digit voter turnouts have happened. Probably mostly in 3rd world countries or ex soviet states.

First world countries have typically been extremely stable so it's understandable that you'd have a normalcy bias.



They'd claim legitimacy but I doubt they'd retain power.

John Adam's wrote that during the revolution 1/3 of the colonists were patriots, 1/3 of the colonists were loyalists and 1/3 were indifferent or undecided.

He said "But what do We mean by the American Revolution? Do We mean the American War? The Revolution was effected before the War commenced. The Revolution was in the Minds and Hearts of the People."

Thats the real advantage we have as a republic.

We arent stuck with power struggles and dead end policys and ideas.

It's not about who wins its about which ideas win.

So far we havent let communism win or autocracy win. We havent let the terrorists win. We didnt let totalitarianism win. We didnt let the monarchy win. We didnt let the nazis win.

We still have a government we can say no to.

We put up a wall to keep foreigners that arent invited in out not to keep you trapped here with us.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Yea, when they say that low voter turnout can be due to satisfaction with the status quo they aren't always lying.

When low voter turnout is combined with other signals (e.g., disobedience), that's when it begins to signal a lack of consent.

So while low voter turnout doesn't always signal a lack of consent, high voter turnout pretty much always does signal consent. (with some acceptable degree of false positives)

If there is high voter turnout accompanied by a high degree of "false positives", that could indicate an increasing degree of foment and dissatisfaction, which might be a precursor to increasing noncompliance. As the left and right and other factions become increasingly fed up with each other, they may become increasingly motivated to "get out the vote" and "vote harder" - and since both sides can't win, the losers in each cycle may become increasingly inclined to defy the results, say "to hell with this bullshit!", and take their marbles home.

(One can hope, anyway ...)

 

[TheTexan]

If there is high voter turnout accompanied by a high degree of "false positives", that could indicate an increasing degree of foment and dissatisfaction, which might be a precursor to increasing noncompliance. As the left and right and other factions become increasingly fed up with each other, they may become increasingly motivated to "get out the vote" and "vote harder" - and since both sides can't win, the losers in each cycle may become increasingly inclined to defy the results, say "to hell with this bullshit!", and take their marbles home.

(One can hope, anyway ...)

Certainly possible (one can hope, anyway ..) that there are situations with high voter turnout and a general lack of consent.

Either way, it would still signal consent. (False positive or otherwise)

It's pretty much impossible for high voter turnout to not signal consent for voting as a system.

Certainly possible for high voter turnout to signal a lack of consent with whatever party or individual candidate.

 

[nikcers]

If there is high voter turnout accompanied by a high degree of "false positives", that could indicate an increasing degree of foment and dissatisfaction, which might be a precursor to increasing noncompliance. As the left and right and other factions become increasingly fed up with each other, they may become increasingly motivated to "get out the vote" and "vote harder" - and since both sides can't win, the losers in each cycle may become increasingly inclined to defy the results, say "to hell with this bullshit!", and take their marbles home.

(One can hope, anyway ...)

Higher turn out can indicate how popular a candidate is and how happy people are.

John Adam's once said the purpose of our government is for the people to be happy.

It turned out that many people werent happy with the previous government and we changed it through elections.

If we were happy with it we could have kept it.

 

[TheTexan]

Higher turn out can indicate how popular a candidate is and how happy people are.

John Adam's once said the purpose of our government is for the people to be happy.

It turned out that many people werent happy with the previous government and we changed it through elections.

If we were happy with it we could have kept it.

Yay democracy!

Making the world better one vote at a time

 

[nikcers]

Yay democracy!

Making the world better one vote at a time

Democracy is definitely preferable to Monarchy.

The British Monarchy went bankrupt and sold one of their colonys (Hong Kong) to China.

When we had an economic depression nobody sold any of our states to a foreign power.

When communism in Europe went through an economic depression they committed suicide.

 

[PAF]

In my opinion...

Too much [or any at all] importance is being put on the act of voting [or not], and not enough emphasis as to what liberty actually means, how to spread those ideas/messages, and how to live accordingly in the current state that this country is in.

Here is an article for folks to ponder [root toot toot go Mises.org and Ron Paul!]:

'Voting: The Seen and the Unseen'

Jul 20, 2025

Mises Daily
Dan Sanchez


A certain line of thinking is all too prevalent among liberty-minded Americans. It runs as follows: “Candidate X may not be perfect, but he is better on domestic economic policy than candidate Y, and that is obviously what matters most for liberty.” This way of thinking underlies “libertarian” endorsements of candidates such as Mitt Romney, and it implicitly throws the entire antiwar aspect of libertarianism under the bus.

This is in stark contrast to Ron Paul’s way of thinking. Ron Paul may be in the Republican Party. But this by no means indicates...

• PAF
• Replies: 2
• Forum: Political Philosophy & Government Policy

 

[Occam's Banana]

Certainly possible (one can hope, anyway ..) that there are situations with high voter turnout and a general lack of consent.

Either way, it would still signal consent. (False positive or otherwise)

It's pretty much impossible for high voter turnout to not signal consent for voting as a system.

Certainly possible for high voter turnout to signal a lack of consent with whatever party or individual candidate.

Short of guillotines being rolled out and put to use or the like, just about anything can be counted as "consent" in some way or another.