Very simple. Non-voters, non-contributors, non-carers. If I keep my mouth shut about politics, why should I give a shit? What if I represent %30 - %40 of the population? Does it undermine democratic representation, or embody it?
It's valid, but if you don't care about politics (you being someone I don't know), why should I care about you? Apathy is a good way to get absolutely nothing accomplished and destroy your self-esteem. That being said, as long as the apathetic people stay out of my way, I don't see how their stance can be invalid.
I don't really know..and don't care, wouldn't change anything anyhow...meh... Seriously though, as to the OP's question..it means those people are 'grazing' and if that is what they want to do, so be it, their choice, BUT they give up the right to complain later if someone shears them.
But that's the thing, apathetic people are not "out of your way". They are economic players, most of them pay taxes. They are consumers who 'vote' with their dollars. Depending on where you live, they help subsidize your transit, your mail, your law enforcement, your infrastructure. They compete with you for jobs and hospital beds and social security. They make use of a system and then when ask about how it's run, they say "I don't care", even if YOU care very much.
I can handle the economic aspect. How apathetic are we talking? If they don't participate in the political process, they work for a living and don't attack people (either through the use of violence or fraud), then I don't see why I should care about them (specifically) unless of course I have some other connection to them i.e. they're a relative or a friend. The working man's dollars are becoming increasingly irrelevant on the political stage, especially within the United States where electronic voting machines' integrity aren't being verified and individual contributions are severely limited. I don't place much stock in any political process myself. Right now I am feeling optimistic regarding Ron Paul and will be supporting him, but, for the most part, I plan on just watching, enjoying myself and maybe preparing myself for any political strife that may occur.
I think it is, in certain circumstances. That of the US, for example, and I use myself as an example. I do care about people, fairness, law, people's rights, security, and other political matters. But, I just have zero faith in the government or it's constituents. To me, it's a fruitless endeavor. As an outsider, you can do all the research and digging you want about parties, candidates and issues, but it's all so massively convoluted with skewed data, interjected opinions, and outright falsifications, that it's impossible to get an objective explanation of anything. No matter what you're looking to find out, it could always just be false. There's no way to tell if any of it is true. So, the answer (well, my answer) is apathy.
I'd say the apathetic ARE the majority, even among "voters". Hence the Federal Reserve, our debt levels, endless warfare, ever growing welfare state, exploding prison population - mostly for nonviolent non-crimes, declining education levels despite increasing budgets year after year, the patriot act, etc. If for no other reason, you should care because of your money. I'm not talking about being rich, I'm talking about money being half of every transaction we make (even buying pot). If the purchasing power of your dollar goes down, the items you buy go up in price. Who controls our monetary policies? The Federal Reserve. Who controls them? Well, no one, really. Who are the shareholders of the Fed banks? Major Wall Street banks (everyone that got bailed out). Most people don't work because they like working, people work for "stuff". If there was a way that everyone could have everything, maybe via a magic machine, why would anyone work? So, if you are working for ever lower wages whether it be by actual pay rate, lack of cost of living increases, or inflation (dollar is worth less), you should care. If you don't, then the state has done its job.
Thanks for this quality answer, Contiuum. I think it's a great example to investigate. You very intentionally set out to frame your opinion with a specific context, and I admire that awareness. I want to further emphasize that context is very important in political discourse and is routinely omitted or is foreign in concept. Thanks for that! To be honest, I personally disagree with your assessment -- but I can absolutely understand why you would feel this way. I can't even say that if I were within your political context, I wouldn't feel the same. You know, I don't believe that to be entirely true. It should be said that to achieve any of those goals, one has to dedicate an extraordinary amount of time and effort. There is no "objectivity" in politics, but there are certainly facts and ideas that can be elucidated. Often though, this is a commitment that is outside the realistic expectations of most full-time workers.
I don't think neutrality has a place in politics in the grand scheme. All it does is clog up the machinery. It affords one the impractical ability to shoot down everything, regardless of sensibility or environment. I have personally watched apathy, within others and myself, turn to cynicism. I think because most apathy forms from a sense of disappointment, neglect, and just a general sense of loneliness or abandonment. Q.e.d. self-fulfilling prophecy.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWJ34YANTYU]Let it not be said that we did nothing. - YouTube[/ame] Let it not be said that we did nothing. - YouTube
My question is what is considered "a valid political stance" and who decides? I don't know about you personally, but I've never fit 100% into one category or the other, which is probably why some people choose to be independent.
Many people lose their motive to care when no candidates look appealing to them.. It doesn't help at all, though misconducting a valid number of representation for the country.
Was also going to add, I know a lot of people who describe voting as "choosing between the lesser of two evils." When you have to choose between one evil and another, it doesn't feel to some like it even matters. At the same time, I can understand your frustration about those people who don't vote and then complain about the way things are. However, when people do vote and then a candidate does none of the things they said they would, should that person feel responsible for the candidate? Even though they false advertised? Most of them don't do a damn thing they say they will anymore, so most people feel duped after an election, at least that's what I hear all the time.
Good point, but it was a question framed to be ambiguous. I wanted the responders to concoct their answer based upon their individual interpretation as to what constitutes "validity". It's a helpful indicator in how the responder qualifies legitimate governance. So far, you'll notice we have answers that range the gambit from one spectrum to another, despite having common ideals and political figures. This introduces some very interesting secondary questions about political dynamics. Could the same be said for those who do not do enough?
This is actually quite an interesting thread. Will give it a thorough read over tonight when I have some more time, until then, subscribed. I've personally always thought that focusing on one party or the other is an intended distraction. Personally, if we focused on the problem and not the category of the individual discussing it, politics could possibly be a bit smoother. Unfortunately, people often get easily distracted by which party is representing an idea and issues that should matter remain constant political mountains.
As my AP Govt. teacher put it to the class my senior year: "If you don't vote, then you can't complain."