Oh crap, I checked the wrong box! I meant to check "no, never". I will ask anyone; if they don't want to tell me that's fine, but that won't stop me from asking.
I don't think anything in politics should be secret - if you can't stand by your vote - why are you casting it? Impassioned conversations of course are a byproduct - and I understand when folks don't do constant defense well and are backing an unpopular underdog - but I find most folk who stand by the "secret vote" principle do so because it isn't fun to vote for satan and then talk about it.
I think if people had to publicly admit to voting for Harper, he wouldn't stand a chance. As I mentioned to brownfist earlier today, he's just embarrassing. "Look, we voted for a monkey! Go monkey!"
First off, I daresay that I voted in a way that is consistent with the views I've voiced here and elsewhere, and in a manner similar to a number of the assembled guests. But it's still none of anyone's business whether I voted Lib to try to avoid a Conservative government, NDP to avoid having Tony Ianno as my MP, or CPC-ML because I've had my consciousness raised recently.
Politics can be inherently divisive. It would be nice if we could all discuss matters politely, without attacking people's beliefs or choices, but not everyone is capable of doing this. If people want to discuss issues, they can ask "How do you feel about [candidate]'s statement on [issue]?" which invites a discussion of the issue rather than of the vote. However, asking point blank who someone voted for is essentially asking them to make a very simplified statement about a complex issue.
My dad and I don't see eye to eye on politics, and he takes every opportunity to attack my views, and I do mean attack. I can hold my own in just about any debate or discussion with people who listen and care to acknowledge facts, rather than simple ideological stances, but my dad often chooses to simply talk over me and shout. So when he asks me "Who are you voting for?" he's essentially saying "Tell me something I know I'm going to disagree with so that I can attack you for it."
This is not polite.
Now, my friends are less likely to attack me for my views, even if we do disagree. But if they're asking me how I'm going to vote, they're still putting me on the spot and asking for a simplified response to a complicated and highly personal decision. My options are to tell them and risk acrimonious debate (the risk may be small, but it's there), or not tell them and be seen as paranoid and stuffy. That's not a polite position to put a person in.
Far more polite to leave the conversational opening, and let your respondent fill it if they choose than to ask them point blank. Far more fruitful to discuss issues than to discuss a single vote.
I am happy to discuss this further without being dismissed in the first sentence. Dismissal off the cuff is kind of what you are complaining about in your note after all.
I stand by what I am saying - I think people should talk about stuff MORE then we do now.
I agree with your sentiment here - which is why I have the disclaimer in my original note. When someone is coming at you with a culturally supported bullshit power stick - there isn't a lot you can do. A father has much more of that power imbalance in his hands and any kind of conversation will crumble that way.
I do stand by the fact that (in my experience) people who don't talk about their vote - are voting in personal interest to the detriment of others AND THEY KNOW IT! Even the pious know that they are in the wrong - and with societal support they will hide behind the popularity of a detriment.
I am not advocating walking up to a stranger on the street and demanding information from them - it sounds like that is how you read my comment.
I am alien to much of Canadian politics - my mum is Canadian and I have some grasp - but I am firmly rooted in the US.
I am someone who voted for Nader in 2000 AND in 2004 - I have continually admitted this openly to a wide variety of people - including people close to me who had violent reactions to this news.
According to popular sentiment I single handedly handed the white house a 2nd time to bush. This is an argument I have had a million times - it always takes a toll and it is always hard and there is more then just information to go over - but knee-jerk arguments to face EVERY TIME! I fight this out with both Republicans and Democrats alike - of which I am neither.
I understand what you are saying - but it really doesn't seem like a reaction to the content of my comment.
I am not asking folk to tattoo anything to their foreheads - just saying the secret vote crowd tends to be the same crowd that stands to make money off of their vote.
I am casting a wide net - but it doesn't mean it isn't valid.
Look, I'm not saying that people shouldn't talk about their votes. I'm saying that asking them is putting them on the spot, and creating a situation in which they may either have to defend themselves or refuse to answer the question. It's like asking them "Are you a virgin?" or "Do you believe in the God of Abraham?"
In my example with my father, I'm not sure where this "culturally imbalance power stick comes from"—do you perceive an imbalance because my dad's male, older, or simply because he told me what to do before I was old enough to organize my own life? I think if you asked my dad, he'd be the first to claim (with some chagrin and a certain amount of pride) that he can't do a thing with me now. He wins arguments because he's impolite, not because he exerts any authority—economic, social, or moral—over me.
Regardless of power dynamics, creating a situation in which your respondent's only options are to demur, lie, or face even the possibility of attack is impolite. Not morally wrong, necessarily, but impolite. Sure, people should stand by their votes. But compelling them, even in a mild social way, to defend their views and not leaving them a graceful social exit, is uncharitable, and essentially forcing them to conform to your social views, rather than presenting them with an opportunity to engage in discussion with you.
The purpose of secret ballots is to prevent violent reprisals from incumbents - which in some circumstances is a very real possibility. Boss man say you gotta vote for the boss man, ya hear?
I'm glad someone pointed out that "the descendants of those who crucified Christ" are technically Romans, not Jews.
The whole thing reminds me of The Ballad of the Carpenter, which is likely the spirit in which Chavez intended it. And not just because I'm soft on the guy.
One of the more peculiar online conversations I've had was a few years ago, on an IRC channel. Someone from Canada was making some good points about racism in the US. I brought up Riel, thinking that the person would sympathise with Riel's concerns for the treatment of the Métis. Instead, the person went off about how Riel was a traitor and deserved to be hanged. Oops. Too close to home, I guess.
Oh, wow. Even in my very reactionary grade school, we learned about Riel as a great Canadian hero. I mean, I'm sure they sanitized his story a great deal, but still.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-23 08:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-23 08:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-23 08:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-23 08:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-23 09:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-23 09:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-23 09:11 pm (UTC)First off, I daresay that I voted in a way that is consistent with the views I've voiced here and elsewhere, and in a manner similar to a number of the assembled guests. But it's still none of anyone's business whether I voted Lib to try to avoid a Conservative government, NDP to avoid having Tony Ianno as my MP, or CPC-ML because I've had my consciousness raised recently.
Politics can be inherently divisive. It would be nice if we could all discuss matters politely, without attacking people's beliefs or choices, but not everyone is capable of doing this. If people want to discuss issues, they can ask "How do you feel about [candidate]'s statement on [issue]?" which invites a discussion of the issue rather than of the vote. However, asking point blank who someone voted for is essentially asking them to make a very simplified statement about a complex issue.
My dad and I don't see eye to eye on politics, and he takes every opportunity to attack my views, and I do mean attack. I can hold my own in just about any debate or discussion with people who listen and care to acknowledge facts, rather than simple ideological stances, but my dad often chooses to simply talk over me and shout. So when he asks me "Who are you voting for?" he's essentially saying "Tell me something I know I'm going to disagree with so that I can attack you for it."
This is not polite.
Now, my friends are less likely to attack me for my views, even if we do disagree. But if they're asking me how I'm going to vote, they're still putting me on the spot and asking for a simplified response to a complicated and highly personal decision. My options are to tell them and risk acrimonious debate (the risk may be small, but it's there), or not tell them and be seen as paranoid and stuffy. That's not a polite position to put a person in.
Far more polite to leave the conversational opening, and let your respondent fill it if they choose than to ask them point blank. Far more fruitful to discuss issues than to discuss a single vote.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-23 09:44 pm (UTC)I stand by what I am saying - I think people should talk about stuff MORE then we do now.
I agree with your sentiment here - which is why I have the disclaimer in my original note. When someone is coming at you with a culturally supported bullshit power stick - there isn't a lot you can do. A father has much more of that power imbalance in his hands and any kind of conversation will crumble that way.
I do stand by the fact that (in my experience) people who don't talk about their vote - are voting in personal interest to the detriment of others AND THEY KNOW IT! Even the pious know that they are in the wrong - and with societal support they will hide behind the popularity of a detriment.
I am not advocating walking up to a stranger on the street and demanding information from them - it sounds like that is how you read my comment.
I am alien to much of Canadian politics - my mum is Canadian and I have some grasp - but I am firmly rooted in the US.
I am someone who voted for Nader in 2000 AND in 2004 - I have continually admitted this openly to a wide variety of people - including people close to me who had violent reactions to this news.
According to popular sentiment I single handedly handed the white house a 2nd time to bush. This is an argument I have had a million times - it always takes a toll and it is always hard and there is more then just information to go over - but knee-jerk arguments to face EVERY TIME! I fight this out with both Republicans and Democrats alike - of which I am neither.
I understand what you are saying - but it really doesn't seem like a reaction to the content of my comment.
I am not asking folk to tattoo anything to their foreheads - just saying the secret vote crowd tends to be the same crowd that stands to make money off of their vote.
I am casting a wide net - but it doesn't mean it isn't valid.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-23 10:17 pm (UTC)Look, I'm not saying that people shouldn't talk about their votes. I'm saying that asking them is putting them on the spot, and creating a situation in which they may either have to defend themselves or refuse to answer the question. It's like asking them "Are you a virgin?" or "Do you believe in the God of Abraham?"
In my example with my father, I'm not sure where this "culturally imbalance power stick comes from"—do you perceive an imbalance because my dad's male, older, or simply because he told me what to do before I was old enough to organize my own life? I think if you asked my dad, he'd be the first to claim (with some chagrin and a certain amount of pride) that he can't do a thing with me now. He wins arguments because he's impolite, not because he exerts any authority—economic, social, or moral—over me.
Regardless of power dynamics, creating a situation in which your respondent's only options are to demur, lie, or face even the possibility of attack is impolite. Not morally wrong, necessarily, but impolite. Sure, people should stand by their votes. But compelling them, even in a mild social way, to defend their views and not leaving them a graceful social exit, is uncharitable, and essentially forcing them to conform to your social views, rather than presenting them with an opportunity to engage in discussion with you.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-23 11:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-23 11:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-24 03:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-24 03:47 am (UTC)You should watch it!
no subject
Date: 2006-01-23 11:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-24 03:41 am (UTC)The whole thing reminds me of The Ballad of the Carpenter, which is likely the spirit in which Chavez intended it. And not just because I'm soft on the guy.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-24 01:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-24 03:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-24 04:13 am (UTC)One of the more peculiar online conversations I've had was a few years ago, on an IRC channel. Someone from Canada was making some good points about racism in the US. I brought up Riel, thinking that the person would sympathise with Riel's concerns for the treatment of the Métis. Instead, the person went off about how Riel was a traitor and deserved to be hanged. Oops. Too close to home, I guess.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-24 04:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-24 04:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-24 04:22 am (UTC)[Insert obligatory apology to Albertans reading this who are not those sorts of Albertans.]
[Insert obligatory self-deprecating comment about Toronto not being the centre of the universe even though it is.]
no subject
Date: 2006-01-24 04:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-24 04:24 am (UTC)