[silvat]

I learned about this stuff from the Robert Caro series. After reading these and the Power Broker, I find it hard to believe that it would be any different nowadays. I don't know what the current methods would be, but why would we assume it's any better?

If it is better, it would be because:

(1) people are 'better' now - probably not true

(2) the preventative measures in place now are better - but we know the lengths that these people will go to perpetuate corruption, so I just assume they've probably found other roundabout ways.

The same goes for elections. LBJ bringing thousands of Mexicans over the border to vote in Texas elections and eventually stealing the his seat in the Senate. Why should we believe that there isn't similar violations happening now? I personally doubt the extent of corruption has changed at all, only that it is more sophisticated. I have no confidence in public elections or the sanctity of government as a result. I'm completely disillusioned and I have no intention of participating at all.

FWIW, I'm not from the USA, but I believe the same principle holds across the world

[fjsolwmv]

What is this? That election had a lot of stealing and Caro claimed Johnson stole more, but I can't find a reference to Mexican voters. It's seems an overcomplicated strategy when a local corrupt pollling place can just directly fill in fraudulent ballots and call in false counts.

[silvat]

I'm fetching this from 3 year old memory here but I think it was in the race vs Coke Stevens, they had trucks of Mexicans brought over the border and were given $5 per vote or something along those lines. This was in conjunction with votes of dead people, double voting etc.

[shaki-dora]

That just makes you part of the problem.

It's really hard to deny that there are difference. Over time: see J Edgar Hoover, or Nixon. Or 70 years without a World War (and generally with drastically fewer wars than before).

And geographically: Canada is better than the US is better than Portugal is better than Greece is better than Iran is better than Sudan is better than North Korea...

Unless you literally believe the vote in your country has as little power as one in North Korea (i.e. zero), there is no moral justification for just cynically throwing up your arms and declaring everyone corrupt/it's all just the globalists/Bilderberg/elite/whatever. Because if enough people do that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[silvat]

Not a discussion I really want to have but fewer wars is most certainly not a consequence of 'people becoming better'.

Regarding voting, I completely understand that my stance is not helping the situation at all and is untenable if too many people adopt it, but I truly believe that the perceived value of a vote is so out of whack with its actual value, that I (selfishly, I admit) decide to give it up entirely. Sure, some places are better than others, but I think in all countries that I'm aware of, it's still too bad for me to care about participating.

Reading political biographies will show you the gulf that exists between how politics actually works, and how the general public perceive it and use as their metric for choosing candidates.