|
On March 02 2012 06:45 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 06:41 stokes17 wrote:On March 02 2012 06:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 02 2012 06:32 stokes17 wrote:On March 02 2012 05:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:I feel like the fact of the matter is that the wealthy elite of the country really do control everything. well if you don't vote, then you give them all the more power. Remove the electoral college and make every vote count! actually, by removing the electoral college, you would make the votes of many of the smaller states completely negligable. four or five states would have all the power and the other states would be completely out of luck. the electoral college actually gives the people more power. Electors are proportional to population....your statement makes no sense it is not directly proportional to the population. yea, its skewed to empower small states.... hence your statement made no sense exactly, so eliminating the electoral college would then take away that empowerment of the smaller states... if the electoral college empowers the smaller states more than they "proportionally deserve" than eliminating it would unempower(?) them
well no, going from current electorate to general vote only
would give every person an equal voice... it would not make small states negligible, it would make them equal because where you live has no bearing.
|
Democracy is a lie. Only gullible people believe it being Democratic.
|
Even if you don't vote for any candidate, you should still go and spoil you ballot paper.
If you don't go to the polling station, they'll dismiss you as apathetic. They'll say "people just don't care about politics."
However, if you spoil your ballot paper, if thousands of others spoil their ballot papers, they cannot just dismiss it as apathy. They will have to acknowledge you.
Take 60% turnout. If half of those that didn't vote had gone and spoiled their papers instead, then a full quarter of all papers would have been spoiled. This would seriously undermine the so called democratic legitimacy of our politicians. It would be a step in the right direction.
|
On March 02 2012 06:15 -Duderino- wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 05:41 Marti wrote:On March 02 2012 05:19 -Duderino- wrote:On March 02 2012 05:06 forgottendreams wrote:On March 02 2012 05:00 -Duderino- wrote:On March 02 2012 04:48 sevencck wrote:On March 02 2012 04:45 -Duderino- wrote:On March 02 2012 04:38 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On March 02 2012 04:33 -Duderino- wrote:
People in the U.S vote because thier individual vote doesnt matter but the American vote as a whole does. We vote because we feel we owe it to our fellow Americans who have the same believes as us.
All the bashing of the American political system is so overblown. Yes it is chaotic and yes money and lobbying does influence it, BUT our political system has made us hands down the greatest country the world has ever seen and probally ever will. The American politcal system has given all Americans so much opportunity, freedom and wealth that the biggest politcal arguements of the day are based on gay rights and religon lol.
Americans have so little problems that are biggest concern when voting is "what do they think about gay marriage" lol like a totally pointless topic, or "what is your plans for fixing these other countries like afghanistan iran and iraq", its not what is your plan for preventing American starvation or any of the other basic problems that many countries still face. So yes our system is a little crazy but until some other country comes close to besting it (which I strongly believe will not be in my lifetime), I will happily cast my useless vote and be proud to be an American. I like lots of things about America, but I'd be careful about calling us the 'greatest country the world has ever seen'. I actually feel that America has only given 'so much opportunity, freedom, and wealth' to a certain few. Lots of Americans have problems that aren't little, including starvation. My significant other is a social worker. Every day she is with people who are starving, ill and cannot receive care, and any number of problems that go along with being poor. These problems exist here. And it easily proven that America is the best country I agree America is a great nation in many ways, but there are many great nations. I'd be interested in hearing your proof. You would have to give me awhile to write good report on why America is the greatest, But if you just look at some basic facts that I don't have citations for: American has to be the largest supplier of world aid, It helped win many a war for the better, It was just recently passed by china as the world largest producer but china has like 5 times as many peeps, Probaly still is the worlds largest consumer, we export are culture worldwide with our styles in music and movies and tv being copied by billions, No other country comes close to exporting freedom like the U.S we will give American lifes for chance of allowing peeps in other countries to live free, we have probaly contributed the most to science and technology, I can go on and on but the point i want to make is forieners should have a lil gratitude for america because no matter where they are from they are affected by america daily even if in an indirect way. And I cant even think of what other country would give the U.S a run for its money Britain mabye but I think we proved what country was better with the revolution, Germany? they blew ther chance wit hitler, China? they blew ther chance many a time, Japan? lol you see when you look at just the history of countires let alone there stance today noone holds the moral compass of the united states, and you can point several incidnets like slavery and vietnam but the united states has made amends and admitted its mistakes and you could even make an arguement that native americans and the vietnamese are better off today then they would have been witout the U.S. So point is get out and vote kids ^^ LOL. Not only are you demanding "foreigners" have gratitude but you believe we "export freedom"? We export any and all regimes to achieve global political goals. Furthermore at the very bottom you leave a great ending "native americans and vietnamese are better off today". Lol? We gave Native Americans liquor, diseases and holed them into tiny plots of land without even full sovereignty with values completely alien to them (AKA many natives valued social capital rather than financial capital). This is simply one of the most embarrassing posts I've ever read. I'm patriotic but for realistic reasons, not fairytale reasons. Yes we export freedom and I can spend 5 min thinking up a hundred examples if you want, Obviously we do it to benefit ourselves but it is freedom nonetheless, You can say we started a war in Iraq for oil or wateva, but the end result?? Millions of Iraqis have more freedom today than they did under saddam hussien, ask any kurd if they believe america exports freedom and you will get a resounding yes. We export regimes for our politcal goals, but our politcal goals are largely based on freedom and saftey for the world, we prevented communist and terrorism while exporting freedom. Yes its a stretch they are better off today but an argument can be made. native americans have medicine and technology that would not be close to having without the U.S. And im not an expert on the vietnam war but they very well could be better off if we had just let communism take over unhidered, maby the soviet union would still be wrecking havoc without the vietnam war. And the thing is these are like the only 2 negatives that anti americans always choose to bash while ignoring the overwhelming amount of good the United States has done for the world. Futhermore you should be ashamed for bashing your country, do you realise what it has done for you? Do you realise what your life would be like had you been born in china? Do you realise that the United States has treated you so well that you get to have a spoiled delusional opinion on why your country is so bad? And wats your deal dude? this is post was embarrasing to you? I love the U.S and im proud to stand up for it lol I am sure there are thousands of kids in iraq, afghanistan, vietnam etc etc etc ... who have lost their parents, but are really fucking glad you brought them democracy ( in exchange for impoverishing the country, stealing oil etc ... ). I am not so sure about native americans tho because if it wasn't for you they probably wouldn't have had many of those diseases in the first place, therefore not needing your medical help, or your technology for that matters, for i am certain they were just as happy if not more without it . Also, i doubt they're very happy about the fact that you literally decimated them. I am also certain that nuking japan twice, killing thousands of innocents civilians and turning those who were not fortunate enough to be killed on the spot into monsters, did not exactly please them. I honestly don't know about freedom and democracy, i doubt it really makes that big of a difference when you indebt most countries who have something you want, but i'm pretty sure anyone with a brain would agree on how freaking disgusting your methods are, i mean, lying to the world and your people is one thing, sending your people to die in another country to increase the wealth of a small percentage of the population is another thing ( i mean you guys don't have a mandatory military service like south korea, people CHOOSE to be in the army ) but planning terrorist attacks on your own people to start a war, that's like really bad fucking news for your people. But maybe you're one of those who belive operation northwoods is a lie and the tonkin incident really happened. I'm out of here. OH boy lol. Where to start??? First off i will emphaize my line that you quoted but didnt read apparently, "And the thing is these are like the only 2 negatives that anti americans always choose to bash while ignoring the overwhelming amount of good the United States has done for the world." Second I will take up your arguments even though you saying the united states was behind 911 makes everything you said meaningless. Yes democracy and freedom come at a price. Yes there are kids in these countries who lost thier parents and they mite not like that trade for freedom but i gurantee you that there kids will be grateful for that trade.All Americans also have ancestors who died for freedom also. As for impovershiing the country you dont provide any facts to back that up, but its not Americas goal to hurt the economies of these countries when we provide them with freedom but yes it is often one of the costs. But when you look down the line these countries are often better off. I have no data on vietnam but i would wager they are better off now then they would have been, and i gurantee Iraq and afghanistan will be better off in 10 years than they would have been with no american intervention. I have gotten stuck defeneding the two worst things america has ever done lol but, I would bet the native americans are better off today than they would have been they would probly still be raiding differnet tribes and makin human sacrafices today had it not been for the united states. And im sure if we hadnt nuked japan alot more japanese, chinese, and americans peeps woulda died. Your last paragraph is to out there to debate. Also i like how your to ashamed to post what country your from but you will openly bash the u.s. Also buddy you have a very strange hatred against the United States lol. Like i dont even hate the worst countries that bring nothing but evil to the world like north korea etc.. as much as you hate the United States lol (and the United States has hands down done more good for the world then any other country. So now im not even intrested in the topic we need to start a new topic on how people become angry and distraught that they have to put all their troubles on the united states lol. Are you a terrorist buddy? did you spend years getting waterboarded by the U.S. cuz you just got a crazy hatred goin lol.
You talk about " the only 2 negatives the anti american choose ", i don't even know what 2 things you are referring to. You speak of the overwhelming amount of good you did, well that's the problem i don't really see it for the most part. I can't really see how kids would trade their parents for the USMC coming to their town killing everyone who has a gun and setting up " democracy " i do belive people can be happy while still being poor. I don't care if people have an radical islamist for president as long as people are happy and he doesn't harm anyone i don't see a problem. Freedom ends where someone else's freedom begins. I also find pretty disgusting that you prefer nuking innocent civilians to prevent more soldiers from being killed. You're basically saying it's okay to use WMDs on X country knowing that it kills indiscriminately armed soldiers and civilians if it can prevent more soldiers from dying. Isn't that like, the point ? That soldiers do war to protect civilians / so that they don't have to suffer ?
You'll also note that i never said anywhere that the US hasn't done anything good.
I don't have any hatred against the united states of america, i've been to california, lived with a family in the san francisco bay and they were nice people. I do, however, hate uneducated kids who post stuff they don't know about, claim their country is the best in the world and has done so much for the world when in fact most people who have died and killed for it in the past decade did so to improve the wealth of a very few select individuals.
I have no " trouble to put on the united states lol ". I am convinced that most of the countries you've invaded would have been better off without you, i don't recall anyone asking you to invade and kill, and i don't see how the so called " freedom" you gave them was any good for them. If people are happy the way things are why change it ?
I would invite you to read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins but you already didn't bother searching " operation northwoods " and assumed that when i talked about your own government wanting to stage terrorist attacks against us citizen i was referring to 9/11.
Now given that you want me to tell you where i come from so badly, given the amount of " lol " in your post and your last sentence i'm pretty sure you're a troll so i'll try to leave it at that.
|
|
|
On March 02 2012 06:49 3Form wrote:
Even if you don't vote for any candidate, you should still go and spoil you ballot paper.
If you don't go to the polling station, they'll dismiss you as apathetic. They'll say "people just don't care about politics."
However, if you spoil your ballot paper, if thousands of others spoil their ballot papers, they cannot just dismiss it as apathy. They will have to acknowledge you.
Take 60% turnout. If half of those that didn't vote had gone and spoiled their papers instead, then a full quarter of all papers would have been spoiled. This would seriously undermine the so called democratic legitimacy of our politicians. It would be a step in the right direction.
People will use the fact that I don't vote to discredit any opinion I have on government.
Like I've said several times already, my opinions that I voiced are 100% unchanged and unaltered regardless of who I vote for and who wins.
If you don't listen to what I've said because I don't vote, you're not addressing any of the content of what I've said, and we would never have a dialogue regardless of whether I voted.
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me that money isn't king in US policy making.
|
On March 02 2012 06:46 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 06:40 stokes17 wrote:On March 02 2012 06:35 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On March 02 2012 06:28 stokes17 wrote:On March 02 2012 05:45 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On March 02 2012 05:39 stokes17 wrote:On March 02 2012 05:28 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On March 02 2012 05:20 stokes17 wrote:On March 02 2012 05:00 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On March 02 2012 04:54 stokes17 wrote:
[quote]
I didn't see the 2 posts you are talking about.
So you admit you can put effort into accomplishing your political goals beyond voting? Then what is your issue. Voting takes no effort, why should it have an impact disproportional to how hard it is to do?
If you want to make an impact in politics get off your butt and do it, if you don't; IMO at the very least become informed and cast a ballot on election day. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself, then I don't really see the use in voting; it won't hurt or anything, but its kinda a waste of time.
EDIT: about turning Utah blue. Don't be naive, of course you can't MAKE IT DEMOCRAT. But you can get a democrat elected as a state rep. And then the state senate. And if he performs really well there, why not get him elected as a Federal rep. 6 years and 3 elections won later, why can't he take on an open senate election? Like it happens dude. Look at Maine. State is extremely Blue with a republican Senate. Here is a summary. I am brainstorming what average joe schmoe (me) can do to 'make a difference'. Suggestions welcome. -Vote: We can argue about this one, but I feel pretty strongly that my vote either doesn't matter, or at best, has an infinitesimal effect. -Protest: What did the recent 99% protests do? Got a lot of college kids arrested and feeling good about themselves. What did my protests back in 2005 about the war in Iraq do? Not much. The only successful, large-scale example I can think of is the African-American civil rights movement, and that took tens of millions of people and 300 years. -Work in politics: I quit my career and work for a campaign/party/run for office myself. I have no money, I have no political connections. I can dedicate my life to it and work day and night, and probably make some impact, but the general system in place will be unchanged. Um, I have worked on various campaigns at the state and county level while going to university full time and working a job in the summer. I think I've helped a few people who I believe in get elected. I feel the effort I put in (like 10-15 hours a week in summer and half that during the school year... although I haven't done any work during school since freshman year) is equal to the influence I get out. There is certainly grey area between, apathetic uninformed observer and career politician.... Like yea dood if you want to be a power player in National Politics you will need to make it a career and put in probably a decade at the state level. Unless you want to rise to national prominence in another field and "make the jump." This is basically true for any field. You don't wake up with a PhD, or with a hedge fund to manage. Further just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you will get published in nationally recognized journals. You put in a ton of effort. Nothing that is powerful is easy. If you want national political Influence you need to work hard for it, either through making a ton of money in the private sector, or by getting your ass on the ground and working HARD. If you want state level influence, you need to be a successful individual who can host a fund raiser for $150-250 a head and draw ~100 people, or someone who's held a county level position for a few terms/worked on a county level campaign. You need either a track record at the level directly below where you want to run, or you need money, or you need a ton of effort (Obama style... well really Howard Dean style, but he's crazy so...) If you have no money and have no desire to put effort into it. Then you can be an informed observer. Spend an hour a day during the week (not at once, ya know 20 here, 15 here) catching up on the political news for the day. Then on the weekend familiarize yourself with concepts and issues you read about but didn't fully understand. Use multiple sources that have opposing biases. Now you can go to town hall meetings (county/state level) and ask informed questions and get people to clap for you if you really pinch a guy. At the very least you will understand the political process better. I agree I could get involved with local politics and have a noticeable impact, but my OP is talking about national elections, and the fact that money is king regarding US policy-making. Like I've said multiple times.... to have influence at the national level you need to do 1 of 2 things 1. Have track record either as a candidate or a staffer working at the state level for a number of years (and the county level before that in many cases) So people will fund your campaign (Obama Method, if you will) Note that this does not involve you being personally wealthy, or you being put in the pocket of some mogul/billionaire 2. Have a ton of money from personal success in the private sector (the Mitt Romney, method if you will) to fund your own campaign If you want to argue about whether or not money should be involved in politics, i see no point, it has been and will be forever. Now by talking about policy making you are changing the ball game from elections to actual administration and legislation. I feel like that is worthy of a separate thread. But in a line, I agree, Lobbying in its current form is disgusting and actively impedes any governmental progress. But as far as elections go, you do not need to be independently wealthy to win elections, even at the national level. Yes, will need some semblance of personal success, just like in literally every other field, but top .1%er wealth is not needed, even at the national level. Plenty of congressmen/women are not millionaires is the main point I'm making I suppose. And are not backed by millionaires either. I'm not claiming that you must be personally wealthy to be elected, but that the wealthy will pump money into your campaign if it serves their interests ---> Religion funds candidate who reflects their views, like when the LDS church paid millions a couple of years back to help kill a same-sex marriage bill in California. To summarize again, I feel that regardless of who I vote for, regardless of who wins, it is all the same. People who are very wealthy, and have probably had the money for generations, will continue to fund campaigns, lobbyists, and assorted organizations to serve their own interest. You realize most campaign contributions are small donors. If you want to talk lobbying and policy thats for another thread... until citizens united, the situation you're describing is not terribly accurate for election campaign contributions. As for your general point yes people and institutions spend money on there interests. But, let me give you an example: I work in a Neurophysiology research lab that studies timing in rats (don't ask it'll take a year to explain  ) Our goal is to be published in a leading national journal. To do that we needed a large grant to fund our research. To get a grant we need to demonstrate to the grant organization (the national health institute in this case) that our research will benefit them in some way. Obviously we chose the NHI because we felt our views aligned, and they agreed and gave us 250k Now would you like to argue that Money and private interests are dictating psychological research to the point that the whole research system is broken? I would not If you substitute journal for Senate seat, and NHI with the Teamsters. Then ... ta da. My point is that as a campaigner, I would seek out supports who I think would agree with my guy. Trying to mold your guy into whoever your potential supporter wants will screw you (Romney is learning this). I guarantee there is someone with influence who's agenda lines up with yours. If you can give me an example where someone is elected without effort (which is money) in any democratic nation, I'd be very interested Campaign contributions is a controversial and shady aspect of US politics. Laws exist to make campaign contributions small, but we both know there are many loopholes that are used to get around them. I don't think the analogy is quite as cut and dry. I also work for a lab that applies for grants and funding from the government and various organizations. The difference between our labs and US policy making is where that money goes. Money for research = good. Money used to elect officials who will pass policies that will make them more money = bad. dood either have a thread on elections or have a thread on lobbying in the policy making process its impossible to discuss both simultaneously And no there are not tons of loopholes (b4 citizens united), some, but not as rampant as you are implying. Every candidate before Obama took public funding for his presidential campaign. Man, I'm just going where the flow takes me  Yes, every candidate takes money, which is kind of my point. Their election depends on their funding. They have to answer to the wealthy who are paying them. In return for their funding, whoever gave them the money will influence their policies in ways which serve the wealthy.
you're going in circles,
the majority of funding comes from small donors. Your cynical view of lobbying (while accurate) doesn't apply to campaign finance (not counting citizens united).
Yes many large donors currently spend 10-50K dollars to go to a special Obama Event and see him eat dinner and maybe shake his hand. Those people have 0 influence in policy making.
|
There are probably enough people like you that think its doesnt matter that if you all voted it might actually make a difference, its cant possibly hurt.
|
On March 02 2012 06:48 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 06:45 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 02 2012 06:41 stokes17 wrote:On March 02 2012 06:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 02 2012 06:32 stokes17 wrote:On March 02 2012 05:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:I feel like the fact of the matter is that the wealthy elite of the country really do control everything. well if you don't vote, then you give them all the more power. Remove the electoral college and make every vote count! actually, by removing the electoral college, you would make the votes of many of the smaller states completely negligable. four or five states would have all the power and the other states would be completely out of luck. the electoral college actually gives the people more power. Electors are proportional to population....your statement makes no sense it is not directly proportional to the population. yea, its skewed to empower small states.... hence your statement made no sense exactly, so eliminating the electoral college would then take away that empowerment of the smaller states... if the electoral college empowers the smaller states more than they "proportionally deserve" than eliminating it would unempower(?) them well no, going from current electorate to general vote only would give every person an equal voice... it would not make small states negligible, it would make them equal because where you live has no bearing.
it would eliminate the need for candidates to campaign in smaller states where the population is so small that a majority would not affect the election. states like wyoming make up <.2% of the population (i believe). no candidate would spend any money at all in those states, or would spend the bare minimum. presidents would not have to worry about favoring more populated states over less populated states. the least populated states would be 100% neglected because their voters would have no practical say in any election.
pratically speaking, it is important where people live. we are generally governed and funded as citizens of states. people think of themselves and others as citizens of states.
|
By not voting you make it easier for others to control everything.
|
Voting is the only power , you have.
No vote , no opinion.
You can't say F*** the health system , and not vote to change it...
You also can't say , there is no party that matches my beliefs.. you mean there is no party that is probably going to win that agrees with you. You vote for that , and if jack shit happens , it't the society's fault for getting deceived and not *googling* enought.
And if the guy you agree with gets elected and then does the complete opposite of what he said he would...
You grab your torch.
Voting is everything , and seriously Why not vote? it only takes like 5 minutes.
|
On March 02 2012 06:53 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 06:49 3Form wrote:
Even if you don't vote for any candidate, you should still go and spoil you ballot paper.
If you don't go to the polling station, they'll dismiss you as apathetic. They'll say "people just don't care about politics."
However, if you spoil your ballot paper, if thousands of others spoil their ballot papers, they cannot just dismiss it as apathy. They will have to acknowledge you.
Take 60% turnout. If half of those that didn't vote had gone and spoiled their papers instead, then a full quarter of all papers would have been spoiled. This would seriously undermine the so called democratic legitimacy of our politicians. It would be a step in the right direction. People will use the fact that I don't vote to discredit any opinion I have on government. Like I've said several times already, my opinions that I voiced are 100% unchanged and unaltered regardless of who I vote for and who wins. If you don't listen to what I've said because I don't vote, you're not addressing any of the content of what I've said, and we would never have a dialogue regardless of whether I voted. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me that money isn't king in US policy making.
dude you are just not well informed on election finance if you can't separate campaign finance from lobbying in Washington.
Money alone will not get you elected. Nor will money alone make you effective lobbyist.
|
Why do I vote?
Because it actually does matter. Arguments otherwise are myopic and self-serving.
|
Then get involved, find like minded individuals and try to make something happen. I don't care if one vote doesn't count for shit, you have no right to complain if you aren't even going to bother, because if all of you nonvoters actually bothered to vote, you would completely change the system.
These people you are bitching about being in power, only stay in power because you let them.
|
On March 01 2012 10:37 DuckS wrote:
The general state of our country and the politics behind it are depressing me more and more daily. People actually think the incumbent president have anything to do with gas prices rising. Media skews fact to pigeon hole into a predisposed opinion, or, just completely make up a fact. People follow and believe any of this media. Some people are just simply uninformed - despite living in a society where being properly informed is everything, and despite living in a society where education isn't that hard to obtain - through school, libraries, hell, the internet. We should be an informed society, not an information society.
Something i've taken a lot of pride in learning is finally collapsing before my eyes - economics. Economics itself is opinionated at times. Keynesian or Von Mises? People have a propensity to form an ideology of predisposition and then view that disposition through the lenses of the former of the latter.
We have politicians that think contraceptives is the important issue. We have politicians that preach "religious freedom," but want Christianity to be the basis of our policies, and form their opinions with that basis. We have politicians that propose new budgeting plan that would put us in a deeper recession. We have politicians that want to "preserve the sanctity of life," but want to cut social programs and forget about the sanctity of life after the life is actually taken form.
We've had politicians of that form become president, and we've had presidents cut taxes, even at illogical times, because their team thinks it's the right choice.
Sometimes, I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
I wrote this in the letting off steam thread, this is basically how I feel. These people are supposed to be representing us, and pretty much control our lives. Feels bad man.. Makes me want to not live in America, to be quite honest. And it'll only get worse.
|
On March 02 2012 06:53 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 06:49 3Form wrote:
Even if you don't vote for any candidate, you should still go and spoil you ballot paper.
If you don't go to the polling station, they'll dismiss you as apathetic. They'll say "people just don't care about politics."
However, if you spoil your ballot paper, if thousands of others spoil their ballot papers, they cannot just dismiss it as apathy. They will have to acknowledge you.
Take 60% turnout. If half of those that didn't vote had gone and spoiled their papers instead, then a full quarter of all papers would have been spoiled. This would seriously undermine the so called democratic legitimacy of our politicians. It would be a step in the right direction. People will use the fact that I don't vote to discredit any opinion I have on government. Like I've said several times already, my opinions that I voiced are 100% unchanged and unaltered regardless of who I vote for and who wins. If you don't listen to what I've said because I don't vote, you're not addressing any of the content of what I've said, and we would never have a dialogue regardless of whether I voted. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me that money isn't king in US policy making.
Hmmmm. I'm saying that instead of not voting, you should spoil your paper instead. That way people cannot discredit you for not voting because in effect you have. Spoiling your paper is in effect a protest vote, a "none-of-the-above". They have to count spoiled papers you know!
However, if you just stay at home instead of going to the polling station then they'll use that to discredit you. I completely agree with you, the old "if you don't vote you shouldn't complain" argument is utter nonsense. I don't want to vote for any of these politicians ffs!!!!!!!!
|
On March 02 2012 06:49 ropumar wrote:
Democracy is a lie. Only gullible people believe it being Democratic.
well that's just not true, is it? care to suggest something better? it's always easier to criticise you know.
|
i agree. living in a state that will 100% always vote in the liberal stance, it's hard for my "voice" to be heard. And it's not like I'll always be conservative. I just feel that for the betterment of this country, AT THIS TIME, I think the policies stated by the Republican party (in general [I don't agree with a lot of it too]) is better than the Democrat stance.
|
On March 02 2012 06:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 06:48 stokes17 wrote:On March 02 2012 06:45 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 02 2012 06:41 stokes17 wrote:On March 02 2012 06:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 02 2012 06:32 stokes17 wrote:On March 02 2012 05:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:I feel like the fact of the matter is that the wealthy elite of the country really do control everything. well if you don't vote, then you give them all the more power. Remove the electoral college and make every vote count! actually, by removing the electoral college, you would make the votes of many of the smaller states completely negligable. four or five states would have all the power and the other states would be completely out of luck. the electoral college actually gives the people more power. Electors are proportional to population....your statement makes no sense it is not directly proportional to the population. yea, its skewed to empower small states.... hence your statement made no sense exactly, so eliminating the electoral college would then take away that empowerment of the smaller states... if the electoral college empowers the smaller states more than they "proportionally deserve" than eliminating it would unempower(?) them well no, going from current electorate to general vote only would give every person an equal voice... it would not make small states negligible, it would make them equal because where you live has no bearing. it would eliminate the need for candidates to campaign in smaller states where the population is so small that a majority would not affect the election. states like wyoming make up <.2% of the population (i believe). no candidate would spend any money at all in those states, or would spend the bare minimum. presidents would not have to worry about favoring more populated states over less populated states. the least populated states would be 100% neglected because their voters would have no practical say in any election.
no 1 campaigns in small non swing states as is. So yes in that way getting rid of the electoral college would weaken small states, because the would lose the boost the electorate gives them. But state lines would have no bearing in a general only election. People would just campaign in dense areas.
Either way, with a general vote system, you can't say 1 vote is negligible compared to another, because geography is irrelevant.
|
On March 02 2012 06:53 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 06:46 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On March 02 2012 06:40 stokes17 wrote:On March 02 2012 06:35 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On March 02 2012 06:28 stokes17 wrote:On March 02 2012 05:45 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On March 02 2012 05:39 stokes17 wrote:On March 02 2012 05:28 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On March 02 2012 05:20 stokes17 wrote:On March 02 2012 05:00 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
[quote]
Here is a summary. I am brainstorming what average joe schmoe (me) can do to 'make a difference'. Suggestions welcome.
-Vote: We can argue about this one, but I feel pretty strongly that my vote either doesn't matter, or at best, has an infinitesimal effect.
-Protest: What did the recent 99% protests do? Got a lot of college kids arrested and feeling good about themselves. What did my protests back in 2005 about the war in Iraq do? Not much. The only successful, large-scale example I can think of is the African-American civil rights movement, and that took tens of millions of people and 300 years.
-Work in politics: I quit my career and work for a campaign/party/run for office myself. I have no money, I have no political connections. I can dedicate my life to it and work day and night, and probably make some impact, but the general system in place will be unchanged. Um, I have worked on various campaigns at the state and county level while going to university full time and working a job in the summer. I think I've helped a few people who I believe in get elected. I feel the effort I put in (like 10-15 hours a week in summer and half that during the school year... although I haven't done any work during school since freshman year) is equal to the influence I get out. There is certainly grey area between, apathetic uninformed observer and career politician.... Like yea dood if you want to be a power player in National Politics you will need to make it a career and put in probably a decade at the state level. Unless you want to rise to national prominence in another field and "make the jump." This is basically true for any field. You don't wake up with a PhD, or with a hedge fund to manage. Further just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you will get published in nationally recognized journals. You put in a ton of effort. Nothing that is powerful is easy. If you want national political Influence you need to work hard for it, either through making a ton of money in the private sector, or by getting your ass on the ground and working HARD. If you want state level influence, you need to be a successful individual who can host a fund raiser for $150-250 a head and draw ~100 people, or someone who's held a county level position for a few terms/worked on a county level campaign. You need either a track record at the level directly below where you want to run, or you need money, or you need a ton of effort (Obama style... well really Howard Dean style, but he's crazy so...) If you have no money and have no desire to put effort into it. Then you can be an informed observer. Spend an hour a day during the week (not at once, ya know 20 here, 15 here) catching up on the political news for the day. Then on the weekend familiarize yourself with concepts and issues you read about but didn't fully understand. Use multiple sources that have opposing biases. Now you can go to town hall meetings (county/state level) and ask informed questions and get people to clap for you if you really pinch a guy. At the very least you will understand the political process better. I agree I could get involved with local politics and have a noticeable impact, but my OP is talking about national elections, and the fact that money is king regarding US policy-making. Like I've said multiple times.... to have influence at the national level you need to do 1 of 2 things 1. Have track record either as a candidate or a staffer working at the state level for a number of years (and the county level before that in many cases) So people will fund your campaign (Obama Method, if you will) Note that this does not involve you being personally wealthy, or you being put in the pocket of some mogul/billionaire 2. Have a ton of money from personal success in the private sector (the Mitt Romney, method if you will) to fund your own campaign If you want to argue about whether or not money should be involved in politics, i see no point, it has been and will be forever. Now by talking about policy making you are changing the ball game from elections to actual administration and legislation. I feel like that is worthy of a separate thread. But in a line, I agree, Lobbying in its current form is disgusting and actively impedes any governmental progress. But as far as elections go, you do not need to be independently wealthy to win elections, even at the national level. Yes, will need some semblance of personal success, just like in literally every other field, but top .1%er wealth is not needed, even at the national level. Plenty of congressmen/women are not millionaires is the main point I'm making I suppose. And are not backed by millionaires either. I'm not claiming that you must be personally wealthy to be elected, but that the wealthy will pump money into your campaign if it serves their interests ---> Religion funds candidate who reflects their views, like when the LDS church paid millions a couple of years back to help kill a same-sex marriage bill in California. To summarize again, I feel that regardless of who I vote for, regardless of who wins, it is all the same. People who are very wealthy, and have probably had the money for generations, will continue to fund campaigns, lobbyists, and assorted organizations to serve their own interest. You realize most campaign contributions are small donors. If you want to talk lobbying and policy thats for another thread... until citizens united, the situation you're describing is not terribly accurate for election campaign contributions. As for your general point yes people and institutions spend money on there interests. But, let me give you an example: I work in a Neurophysiology research lab that studies timing in rats (don't ask it'll take a year to explain ) Our goal is to be published in a leading national journal. To do that we needed a large grant to fund our research. To get a grant we need to demonstrate to the grant organization (the national health institute in this case) that our research will benefit them in some way. Obviously we chose the NHI because we felt our views aligned, and they agreed and gave us 250k Now would you like to argue that Money and private interests are dictating psychological research to the point that the whole research system is broken? I would not If you substitute journal for Senate seat, and NHI with the Teamsters. Then ... ta da. My point is that as a campaigner, I would seek out supports who I think would agree with my guy. Trying to mold your guy into whoever your potential supporter wants will screw you (Romney is learning this). I guarantee there is someone with influence who's agenda lines up with yours. If you can give me an example where someone is elected without effort (which is money) in any democratic nation, I'd be very interested Campaign contributions is a controversial and shady aspect of US politics. Laws exist to make campaign contributions small, but we both know there are many loopholes that are used to get around them. I don't think the analogy is quite as cut and dry. I also work for a lab that applies for grants and funding from the government and various organizations. The difference between our labs and US policy making is where that money goes. Money for research = good. Money used to elect officials who will pass policies that will make them more money = bad. dood either have a thread on elections or have a thread on lobbying in the policy making process its impossible to discuss both simultaneously And no there are not tons of loopholes (b4 citizens united), some, but not as rampant as you are implying. Every candidate before Obama took public funding for his presidential campaign. Man, I'm just going where the flow takes me Yes, every candidate takes money, which is kind of my point. Their election depends on their funding. They have to answer to the wealthy who are paying them. In return for their funding, whoever gave them the money will influence their policies in ways which serve the wealthy. you're going in circles, the majority of funding comes from small donors. Your cynical view of lobbying (while accurate) doesn't apply to campaign finance (not counting citizens united). Yes many large donors currently spend 10-50K dollars to go to a special Obama Event and see him eat dinner and maybe shake his hand. Those people have 0 influence in policy making.
I don't see where I'm being circular. Events like that are exactly what I'm talking about. Candidates get their money from the super-wealthy. In turn, the super-wealthy have their investment pay off when candidate is elected, and passes policy that is favorable to those who gave them money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
