How will voting change the system if no candidate is willing to change it? And just to be clear, I didn't say I'm not voting or that I think the system is broken. I'm asking you to explain your position.
> How will voting change the system if no candidate is willing to change it?
You make the assumption enough people want to change it. They don't. At least, not yet. Candidates aren't some otherworldly beast, they are citizens. If people really wanted to enact change, they could.
You can't make a change alone. If enough people want to make the change, they can vote to make it happen. It's a really simple concept.
I'm not making that assumption. I think most people are fine with the system. The only thing we're lacking in is voter education (both fundamentally and on issues). Fix that, and the system works perfectly.
The populace is so poorly educated that researching candidates and issues is an enormous strain on them, and most people can't make themselves do it. Asking someone who got a poor education to read through a bill or look through a voting record is asking a lot.
> How will voting change the system if no candidate is willing to change it?
You have to make the assumption that people are willing to make the change for that question to be valid, otherwise, it reads like thsi:
"How will voting change the system if no candidate is willing to change it and voters aren't willing to change it?"
So yes, you do assume, for the question, that the voters want change. And if the majority of voters want that change, it can be made to happen. They simply vote for it.
It should be enough for me to say "I'm not making that assumption." Rather than call me a liar, you could assume that either you misunderstood, or I misspoke and decided correcting it wasn't worth spending text on.
Maybe I just assume too much of people. Was this little diversion really necessary?
> It should be enough for me to say "I'm not making that assumption."
But you were.
> Rather than call me a liar,
I didn't.
> you could assume that either you misunderstood,
I didn't. You said what you said. If you didn't mean what you said, fine. But then clarify it.
> or I misspoke and decided correcting it wasn't worth spending text on.
Then maybe you should avoid commenting on things you don't feel are worth your time, especially when you can't be bothered to say what you mean.
> Maybe I just assume too much of people.
I make the assumption people say what they mean. As you've demonstrated,
> Was this little diversion really necessary?
Apparently you found it necessary. Rather than simply correct what you wrote, you decided to disregard what I said and then comment on things completely unimportant to the discussion.
You asked a question, and I answered. If you aren't interested in a discussion, don't post here. If you are, at least have the courtesy to be clear about what you write. Being lazy and uncaring about quality aren't respected here.
I guess you could move to another country, or you could try and overthrow the government and change popular opinion, but that's a pretty big ask. The vast majority of people believe that one person per vote is 'fair'. Probably because it's simple for them to understand, and they've been taught that everyone should be 'equal'.
So if you disagree with that premise (That one person per vote is fair), what should you do? throw your useless vote in the box with all the people who voted because they like the candidates hair?
FWIW I vote anyway since it's the lesser of 2 evils.
It's not so much the people you describe voting for candidates for reasons as silly as their hair, it's the candidates attempting to appeal to these people which I feel is the biggest issue.
In the recent Australian election by election day each party had summarized there policies/ attacks into a few dot points which they had talked about over and over again hoping I guess to impart at least a few dot points on people before they vote.
"I disagree with the system" is intellectually lazy and in my experience merely a cover story for apathy.