|
|
On November 06 2012 17:56 p4NDemik wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 16:13 Falling wrote:On November 06 2012 15:13 jdseemoreglass wrote:So I took that quiz. The results are a little surprising to me, they put Romney in last place! I'm more Democrat than Republican apparently, hate to disappoint all you liberals, especially Souma and oneofthem. + Show Spoiler + That's funny. I actually support Romney more than you according to this. + Show Spoiler +...but still dead last. I wonder what your Green party is advocating because there is no way I would match that closely to Elizabeth May in Canada. (It's like the last party I would vote for.) Well not dead last ... there is Virgil Goode and Rocky Anderson (?) running as the Constitutional and Justice Party candidates, respectively. Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 13:03 Signet wrote:On November 06 2012 13:01 holy_war wrote:On November 06 2012 12:59 Zaqwert wrote:
Obama will probably win and this thread will erupt in high fives and celebration.
Meanwhile every person under 18 in this country is inheriting $218,676 in national debt.
WOW, we did it you guys! FOUR MORE YEARS!
It's a great irony in life that all the silly children supporting him this time will be the one inheriting the disaster of a country his policies will leave behind. And sadly, neither Obama nor Romney can do much about that debt. Even more sadly (for deficit hawks), both have promised to avoid the "fiscal cliff" that would bring the deficit somewhat under control. I'm reaching kind of far back in the thread now as I've been off doing other things for the last few hours, but you have no idea what you are talking about. The Fiscal Cliff is not something to be worked towards, it is not and never was a best-case scenario (this being sequestration). In fact it the idea of it was to create something that both parties hated so much that they would be forced to make a real concerted effort to make cuts in areas that don't hit both parties so hard in the kisser. The sequester is the fall-back plan that no one wants to have to see go into effect, and if politicians fail to avoid it it sends bad messages to markets all over the globe. If you are sitting in your living room hoping for the sequester then you're mad. edit: To make it clear as you say politicians want to avoid the fiscal cliff. The only way you avoid sequester is if you agree on alternative ways of reaching the same amount of deficit reduction. To be clear, its not going to be the end of the world if they can't solve it, but it's certainly not a good thing if Democrats and Republicans convene and once again cannot resolve this. A number of economists predict a double-dip recession if sequestration is not avoided.
The rule on the top of the thread says talk about Obama and Romney, not 3rd party candidates.
As for the fiscal cliff, is Signet the only person in this thread who thinks hitting the fiscal cliff is a good idea? Supposing that he is a Republican or at least Republican leaning, then at least he's not a hypocrite on this issue.
Compare this to Romney or other Republicans who believe the fiscal cliff will wreck the economy, while at the same time believing that stimulus is bad and that deficits are bad. Such a belief is self-contradictory and completely hypocritical.
Also it's not true that the only way to avoid it is to find other spending cuts, a committee was formed to try that after the debt ceiling debacle, it failed and that failure is what triggered the fiscal cliff in the first place. They could just delay or even call the whole thing off. Or come to whatever other agreement they like.
But I don't expect a major deal. The most likely outcome is Obama will remain President, the Republicans keep the House and the Democrats keep the Senate, which translates to 4 more years of deadlock, as the Republicans hold the economy hostage, yet again.
|
On November 06 2012 18:23 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 18:18 Feartheguru wrote:On November 06 2012 17:25 Signet wrote:On November 06 2012 15:52 Sub40APM wrote:On November 06 2012 15:47 Zaqwert wrote:
Today ~30% of people will vote for one guy, ~30% of people will vote for a different guy, ~40% of people won't vote at all.
And the guy who wins will go immediately start forcing a whole bunch of crap on the other 70% of the country because of his "mandate"
Democracy is a joke.
I never asked to be part of this little system, yet I am a slave to it. My rights, my property, my freedoms, all at the whims of millions of other dullards ever couple of years in Novemeber.
I never gave anyone consent or permission to make decisions about my life other than me. Where is a first world problems meme when you need one. It is a huge problem that whoever wins will govern with the consent of 30% of the adult population. Not sure that there is a realistic solution better than just hoping more people start to both care and participate, but it's scary that 30% of the country can send us to war or take away people's rights / etc. Common sense leads to the conclusion that the 40% are evenly split, or ambivalent to the policies of government and can thus be removed from the 100%. Common sense further dictates that a vote cannot be equated to one's consent, as those who do not vote are still bound by obligation and restriction to/from the government and the society.
Compulsory voting is a possible solution.
There's an article in the SMH today arguing that it's also a solution to gridlock and fringe issues getting so much attention:
The single most important reform for the US proposed by Mann and Ornstein is probably the most controversial - the Australian system of compulsory voting. ''In both primaries and general elections in the US, party professionals and consultants focus on bases: how to gin up the turnout of the party's ideological base and suppress the turnout of the other side,'' they write. This has ''encouraged a concentration on hot-button issues that appeal to the party bases, like guns, abortion, immigration and same-sex marriage, and led to more and more extreme rhetoric and exaggerated positions''. With compulsory voting, the incentive to drive turnout through appeals to the extremes would evaporate. The new incentive would be to appeal to the moderate middle. Which is why Australian elections are never fought on guns or abortion but on the earnest middle issues like mortgage rates. Source: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/us-looks-down-under-to-stop-poll-rot-20121105-28tz1.html
|
On November 06 2012 18:29 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 18:23 Chargelot wrote:On November 06 2012 18:18 Feartheguru wrote:On November 06 2012 17:25 Signet wrote:On November 06 2012 15:52 Sub40APM wrote:On November 06 2012 15:47 Zaqwert wrote:
Today ~30% of people will vote for one guy, ~30% of people will vote for a different guy, ~40% of people won't vote at all.
And the guy who wins will go immediately start forcing a whole bunch of crap on the other 70% of the country because of his "mandate"
Democracy is a joke.
I never asked to be part of this little system, yet I am a slave to it. My rights, my property, my freedoms, all at the whims of millions of other dullards ever couple of years in Novemeber.
I never gave anyone consent or permission to make decisions about my life other than me. Where is a first world problems meme when you need one. It is a huge problem that whoever wins will govern with the consent of 30% of the adult population. Not sure that there is a realistic solution better than just hoping more people start to both care and participate, but it's scary that 30% of the country can send us to war or take away people's rights / etc. Common sense leads to the conclusion that the 40% are evenly split, or ambivalent to the policies of government and can thus be removed from the 100%. Common sense further dictates that a vote cannot be equated to one's consent, as those who do not vote are still bound by obligation and restriction to/from the government and the society. Compulsory voting is a possible solution. There's an article in the SMH today arguing that it's also a solution to gridlock and fringe issues getting so much attention: Show nested quote +The single most important reform for the US proposed by Mann and Ornstein is probably the most controversial - the Australian system of compulsory voting. ''In both primaries and general elections in the US, party professionals and consultants focus on bases: how to gin up the turnout of the party's ideological base and suppress the turnout of the other side,'' they write. This has ''encouraged a concentration on hot-button issues that appeal to the party bases, like guns, abortion, immigration and same-sex marriage, and led to more and more extreme rhetoric and exaggerated positions''. With compulsory voting, the incentive to drive turnout through appeals to the extremes would evaporate. The new incentive would be to appeal to the moderate middle. Which is why Australian elections are never fought on guns or abortion but on the earnest middle issues like mortgage rates. Source: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/us-looks-down-under-to-stop-poll-rot-20121105-28tz1.html
We'd need to have a vote to see if compulsory voting should be required. Unfortunately, no one would show up to vote on the issue.
|
Nice pic.
![[image loading]](http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/osVR.5Wkt11xg88p4XYH7g--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NQ--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/theticket/155608716.jpg)
|
On November 06 2012 18:34 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 18:29 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 06 2012 18:23 Chargelot wrote:On November 06 2012 18:18 Feartheguru wrote:On November 06 2012 17:25 Signet wrote:On November 06 2012 15:52 Sub40APM wrote:On November 06 2012 15:47 Zaqwert wrote:
Today ~30% of people will vote for one guy, ~30% of people will vote for a different guy, ~40% of people won't vote at all.
And the guy who wins will go immediately start forcing a whole bunch of crap on the other 70% of the country because of his "mandate"
Democracy is a joke.
I never asked to be part of this little system, yet I am a slave to it. My rights, my property, my freedoms, all at the whims of millions of other dullards ever couple of years in Novemeber.
I never gave anyone consent or permission to make decisions about my life other than me. Where is a first world problems meme when you need one. It is a huge problem that whoever wins will govern with the consent of 30% of the adult population. Not sure that there is a realistic solution better than just hoping more people start to both care and participate, but it's scary that 30% of the country can send us to war or take away people's rights / etc. Common sense leads to the conclusion that the 40% are evenly split, or ambivalent to the policies of government and can thus be removed from the 100%. Common sense further dictates that a vote cannot be equated to one's consent, as those who do not vote are still bound by obligation and restriction to/from the government and the society. Compulsory voting is a possible solution. There's an article in the SMH today arguing that it's also a solution to gridlock and fringe issues getting so much attention: The single most important reform for the US proposed by Mann and Ornstein is probably the most controversial - the Australian system of compulsory voting. ''In both primaries and general elections in the US, party professionals and consultants focus on bases: how to gin up the turnout of the party's ideological base and suppress the turnout of the other side,'' they write. This has ''encouraged a concentration on hot-button issues that appeal to the party bases, like guns, abortion, immigration and same-sex marriage, and led to more and more extreme rhetoric and exaggerated positions''. With compulsory voting, the incentive to drive turnout through appeals to the extremes would evaporate. The new incentive would be to appeal to the moderate middle. Which is why Australian elections are never fought on guns or abortion but on the earnest middle issues like mortgage rates. Source: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/us-looks-down-under-to-stop-poll-rot-20121105-28tz1.html We'd need to have a vote to see if compulsory voting should be required. Unfortunately, no one would show up to vote on the issue.
Haha, the irony burns. I don't understand why so many people don't vote, obviously you might have some personal issues and don't want to deal with politics but it seems to me most people are just and/or have no faith in politics whatsoever.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Americans would not be happy being forced to vote. They'd probably write in Barney Stinson.
|
On November 06 2012 18:29 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 18:23 Chargelot wrote:On November 06 2012 18:18 Feartheguru wrote:On November 06 2012 17:25 Signet wrote:On November 06 2012 15:52 Sub40APM wrote:On November 06 2012 15:47 Zaqwert wrote:
Today ~30% of people will vote for one guy, ~30% of people will vote for a different guy, ~40% of people won't vote at all.
And the guy who wins will go immediately start forcing a whole bunch of crap on the other 70% of the country because of his "mandate"
Democracy is a joke.
I never asked to be part of this little system, yet I am a slave to it. My rights, my property, my freedoms, all at the whims of millions of other dullards ever couple of years in Novemeber.
I never gave anyone consent or permission to make decisions about my life other than me. Where is a first world problems meme when you need one. It is a huge problem that whoever wins will govern with the consent of 30% of the adult population. Not sure that there is a realistic solution better than just hoping more people start to both care and participate, but it's scary that 30% of the country can send us to war or take away people's rights / etc. Common sense leads to the conclusion that the 40% are evenly split, or ambivalent to the policies of government and can thus be removed from the 100%. Common sense further dictates that a vote cannot be equated to one's consent, as those who do not vote are still bound by obligation and restriction to/from the government and the society. Compulsory voting is a possible solution. There's an article in the SMH today arguing that it's also a solution to gridlock and fringe issues getting so much attention: Show nested quote +The single most important reform for the US proposed by Mann and Ornstein is probably the most controversial - the Australian system of compulsory voting. ''In both primaries and general elections in the US, party professionals and consultants focus on bases: how to gin up the turnout of the party's ideological base and suppress the turnout of the other side,'' they write. This has ''encouraged a concentration on hot-button issues that appeal to the party bases, like guns, abortion, immigration and same-sex marriage, and led to more and more extreme rhetoric and exaggerated positions''. With compulsory voting, the incentive to drive turnout through appeals to the extremes would evaporate. The new incentive would be to appeal to the moderate middle. Which is why Australian elections are never fought on guns or abortion but on the earnest middle issues like mortgage rates. Source: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/us-looks-down-under-to-stop-poll-rot-20121105-28tz1.html
The low information voter would run rampant with compulsory voting and that would probably be the worst possible solution.
|
On November 06 2012 16:34 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 16:03 mmp wrote:On November 06 2012 15:58 farvacola wrote:
Walk around Moscow and attempt to poll 1000 random people (if you can) as to how "free" they feel and how happy they are. Do the same in any major US city and the differences will be awfully sharp. My question was mainly, is the electoral system utterly corrupted, or is it just a similar perception of defeat that keeps people away from an otherwise fair election. In the U.S. our elections are more or less (with serious exceptions in the swing states, gerrymandering, disenfranchisement, and all sorts of other dirty tricks (Nixon, Jeb Bush)) fair, and both parties respect the outcome of the election (e.g. Gore's abdication in 2000). The votes are counted. Yes, the system is utterly corrupt as party officials of United Russia control all levers of government from the federal level on down to region to sub regional to specific sub units. Alternative political parties are not allowed to organize unless they are comical, like the national-socialist wannabes, or are neutered, the way the liberal 'Apple' block was. The KGB routinely attempts to launch honey pot operations against its critics to discredit them. There is also a non stop cult of personality built around Putin doing many manly things that is supposed to create a sharp contrast between Putin and Yeltsin. Finally, significant portions of the oil revenue are diverted to various special projects that buy voters directly, pushing up the breakeven point for the Russian budget to 125 dollars per barrel.
Well, we spend billions in kickbacks in the U.S., but that's all part of defense, stimulus, security--- meanwhile there's apparently no money left over for education, poverty, healthcare.
And the Dems and Republicans "control the levers" so as to stifle competition, not limited to: ballot access criteria, campaign finance rules, and paid propaganda. In some cases the parties collude to block 3rd parties. I know firsthand that the Democrats use $ to discredit and otherwise "co-opt" grassroots politics that might hurt them in swing elections. I believe similar things happen with libertarian grassroots getting sucked into the GOP.
So, the levers are very much in control of the bastards. Otherwise people would know who Jill Stein is. And Jill Stein isn't offering the rhetoric of, "To be safe, vote for Obama if you're in a swing state, because he's the lesser of two evils." The 3rd parties understand how bad things really are.
In my opinion, whether you vote 3rd party or whether you "play it safe" (right or left) is based on how you identity with the middle class. Middle class values come down to: Dem = Pay taxes so everyone can have a fair shot. Rep = Individual responsibility trumps welfare. These are soft philosophical hooks that have practically nothing to do with the issues. This identity politics, combined with moral hooks (abortion, unemployment free-riders, etc.), completely overlooks the fact that Dems and Rep administrations are equally likely to:
- Wage wars of aggression.
- Give major kickbacks to the finance sector.
- Give major kickbacks to the healthcare industry.
- Deregulate energy and finance.
- Do nothing about education.
- Do nothing about poverty.
- Do nothing about unemployment. High-tech jobs companies don't employ as many people as hand-skilled labor, and it's the high-tech industries that do well even in a rough economy, though good luck competing. More Americans are finding sustaining work in service industries that: pay minimum or near-minimum wage, don't come with health coverage, don't provide enough hours --- so you're working 2-3 part timers.
- Fail to protect domestic labor. High-tech companies operate on an international arena.
- Squander money of domestic security kickbacks (items like x-ray scanners in airports that are both unsafe and humiliating).
- Squander money on future weapons research that Americans don't want.
If you work for a high-tech company and are pulling in >100k, then maybe you wouldn't call it "squandering." Maybe you think your work is very important to the progress of (insert ideological utopia here). I don't, but that's just a class divide.
I also think this is why austerity leads to a fascist backlash. You have poor rightists who have identified with the "individual responsibility trumps welfare" philosophy as a way of rejecting self-pity. Whatever you have, it's because you earned it. So when your SES starts declining with the rest of the economy, you can't blame yourself. You blame the high-tech elites that sold out honest hardworking people in favor of ... (insert minority conspiracy or miscellaneous xenophobia). And it isn't total bigotry. Unregulated business globalization means that unless you have valuable knowledge skills (and even there you have to compete on an international level), your manual skills are competing with indentured servants around the world.
Which is why more Americans are working in low-skill or retail/service, part-time, for low wages, without benefits.
Tough luck, I guess.
To put my own perspective on it, as someone in a high-tech industry (though poor  ), if you look at where money goes to start businesses and what kinds of businesses people are starting, a lot of it is in mobile applications (games and other inanely ticklesome widgets). There are offices around the country where dozens of incubator start-ups are all competing (even collaborating) to become the next big thing, trying to figure out how to get an edge in a bubblesome market, and these people move from one bomb to the next wherever there are investors, wherever there is money to pay the rent, with the hope of being bought out by the big players and avoiding a 9-5 in corporate.
Your best chance at creating value in a gilded age is to please the haves with entertainment and luxury items (the rest can sell iPhone cases at BestBuy). To do this, you need knowledge skills that, sadly, are expensive to train (so students will risk huge college debt to have a shot), and, unfortunately, there aren't enough high-tech jobs to go around, which is why you see students coming out of college with great knowledge skills and going right back to their high-school jobs.
Who is to blame? Well, everyone. Money is value, and how you spend your money expresses what industries you value. Things you pay for flourish, things you avoid starve. We rely on massive industrialization for our food (indentured servitude in some places). We rely on global sweatshop industries for our clothing, furniture, computers, and just about everything we own. The solution cannot be to buy more iPhones...
|
On November 06 2012 18:39 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 18:29 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 06 2012 18:23 Chargelot wrote:On November 06 2012 18:18 Feartheguru wrote:On November 06 2012 17:25 Signet wrote:On November 06 2012 15:52 Sub40APM wrote:On November 06 2012 15:47 Zaqwert wrote:
Today ~30% of people will vote for one guy, ~30% of people will vote for a different guy, ~40% of people won't vote at all.
And the guy who wins will go immediately start forcing a whole bunch of crap on the other 70% of the country because of his "mandate"
Democracy is a joke.
I never asked to be part of this little system, yet I am a slave to it. My rights, my property, my freedoms, all at the whims of millions of other dullards ever couple of years in Novemeber.
I never gave anyone consent or permission to make decisions about my life other than me. Where is a first world problems meme when you need one. It is a huge problem that whoever wins will govern with the consent of 30% of the adult population. Not sure that there is a realistic solution better than just hoping more people start to both care and participate, but it's scary that 30% of the country can send us to war or take away people's rights / etc. Common sense leads to the conclusion that the 40% are evenly split, or ambivalent to the policies of government and can thus be removed from the 100%. Common sense further dictates that a vote cannot be equated to one's consent, as those who do not vote are still bound by obligation and restriction to/from the government and the society. Compulsory voting is a possible solution. There's an article in the SMH today arguing that it's also a solution to gridlock and fringe issues getting so much attention: The single most important reform for the US proposed by Mann and Ornstein is probably the most controversial - the Australian system of compulsory voting. ''In both primaries and general elections in the US, party professionals and consultants focus on bases: how to gin up the turnout of the party's ideological base and suppress the turnout of the other side,'' they write. This has ''encouraged a concentration on hot-button issues that appeal to the party bases, like guns, abortion, immigration and same-sex marriage, and led to more and more extreme rhetoric and exaggerated positions''. With compulsory voting, the incentive to drive turnout through appeals to the extremes would evaporate. The new incentive would be to appeal to the moderate middle. Which is why Australian elections are never fought on guns or abortion but on the earnest middle issues like mortgage rates. Source: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/us-looks-down-under-to-stop-poll-rot-20121105-28tz1.html The low information voter would run rampant with compulsory voting and that would probably be the worst possible solution.
You assume that a majority of voters have some sort of idea what the candidates are like in the first place. I can assure you otherwise.
|
On November 06 2012 18:51 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 18:39 Adreme wrote:On November 06 2012 18:29 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 06 2012 18:23 Chargelot wrote:On November 06 2012 18:18 Feartheguru wrote:On November 06 2012 17:25 Signet wrote:On November 06 2012 15:52 Sub40APM wrote:On November 06 2012 15:47 Zaqwert wrote:
Today ~30% of people will vote for one guy, ~30% of people will vote for a different guy, ~40% of people won't vote at all.
And the guy who wins will go immediately start forcing a whole bunch of crap on the other 70% of the country because of his "mandate"
Democracy is a joke.
I never asked to be part of this little system, yet I am a slave to it. My rights, my property, my freedoms, all at the whims of millions of other dullards ever couple of years in Novemeber.
I never gave anyone consent or permission to make decisions about my life other than me. Where is a first world problems meme when you need one. It is a huge problem that whoever wins will govern with the consent of 30% of the adult population. Not sure that there is a realistic solution better than just hoping more people start to both care and participate, but it's scary that 30% of the country can send us to war or take away people's rights / etc. Common sense leads to the conclusion that the 40% are evenly split, or ambivalent to the policies of government and can thus be removed from the 100%. Common sense further dictates that a vote cannot be equated to one's consent, as those who do not vote are still bound by obligation and restriction to/from the government and the society. Compulsory voting is a possible solution. There's an article in the SMH today arguing that it's also a solution to gridlock and fringe issues getting so much attention: The single most important reform for the US proposed by Mann and Ornstein is probably the most controversial - the Australian system of compulsory voting. ''In both primaries and general elections in the US, party professionals and consultants focus on bases: how to gin up the turnout of the party's ideological base and suppress the turnout of the other side,'' they write. This has ''encouraged a concentration on hot-button issues that appeal to the party bases, like guns, abortion, immigration and same-sex marriage, and led to more and more extreme rhetoric and exaggerated positions''. With compulsory voting, the incentive to drive turnout through appeals to the extremes would evaporate. The new incentive would be to appeal to the moderate middle. Which is why Australian elections are never fought on guns or abortion but on the earnest middle issues like mortgage rates. Source: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/us-looks-down-under-to-stop-poll-rot-20121105-28tz1.html The low information voter would run rampant with compulsory voting and that would probably be the worst possible solution. You assume that a majority of voters have some sort of idea what the candidates are like in the first place. I can assure you otherwise.
The majority are not low information voters, they might have wrong information but they are not low information.
|
On November 06 2012 19:05 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 18:51 aksfjh wrote:On November 06 2012 18:39 Adreme wrote:On November 06 2012 18:29 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 06 2012 18:23 Chargelot wrote:On November 06 2012 18:18 Feartheguru wrote:On November 06 2012 17:25 Signet wrote:On November 06 2012 15:52 Sub40APM wrote:On November 06 2012 15:47 Zaqwert wrote:
Today ~30% of people will vote for one guy, ~30% of people will vote for a different guy, ~40% of people won't vote at all.
And the guy who wins will go immediately start forcing a whole bunch of crap on the other 70% of the country because of his "mandate"
Democracy is a joke.
I never asked to be part of this little system, yet I am a slave to it. My rights, my property, my freedoms, all at the whims of millions of other dullards ever couple of years in Novemeber.
I never gave anyone consent or permission to make decisions about my life other than me. Where is a first world problems meme when you need one. It is a huge problem that whoever wins will govern with the consent of 30% of the adult population. Not sure that there is a realistic solution better than just hoping more people start to both care and participate, but it's scary that 30% of the country can send us to war or take away people's rights / etc. Common sense leads to the conclusion that the 40% are evenly split, or ambivalent to the policies of government and can thus be removed from the 100%. Common sense further dictates that a vote cannot be equated to one's consent, as those who do not vote are still bound by obligation and restriction to/from the government and the society. Compulsory voting is a possible solution. There's an article in the SMH today arguing that it's also a solution to gridlock and fringe issues getting so much attention: The single most important reform for the US proposed by Mann and Ornstein is probably the most controversial - the Australian system of compulsory voting. ''In both primaries and general elections in the US, party professionals and consultants focus on bases: how to gin up the turnout of the party's ideological base and suppress the turnout of the other side,'' they write. This has ''encouraged a concentration on hot-button issues that appeal to the party bases, like guns, abortion, immigration and same-sex marriage, and led to more and more extreme rhetoric and exaggerated positions''. With compulsory voting, the incentive to drive turnout through appeals to the extremes would evaporate. The new incentive would be to appeal to the moderate middle. Which is why Australian elections are never fought on guns or abortion but on the earnest middle issues like mortgage rates. Source: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/us-looks-down-under-to-stop-poll-rot-20121105-28tz1.html The low information voter would run rampant with compulsory voting and that would probably be the worst possible solution. You assume that a majority of voters have some sort of idea what the candidates are like in the first place. I can assure you otherwise. The majority are not low information voters, they might have wrong information but they are not low information.
do we really want to force people incapable of forging their own opinion to vote?
|
Is there any chance of the US ever changing it's election system? Seems like you're all just resigned to having the first past the post system forever.
|
On November 06 2012 19:12 DOUDOU wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 19:05 Adreme wrote:On November 06 2012 18:51 aksfjh wrote:On November 06 2012 18:39 Adreme wrote:On November 06 2012 18:29 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 06 2012 18:23 Chargelot wrote:On November 06 2012 18:18 Feartheguru wrote:On November 06 2012 17:25 Signet wrote:On November 06 2012 15:52 Sub40APM wrote:On November 06 2012 15:47 Zaqwert wrote:
Today ~30% of people will vote for one guy, ~30% of people will vote for a different guy, ~40% of people won't vote at all.
And the guy who wins will go immediately start forcing a whole bunch of crap on the other 70% of the country because of his "mandate"
Democracy is a joke.
I never asked to be part of this little system, yet I am a slave to it. My rights, my property, my freedoms, all at the whims of millions of other dullards ever couple of years in Novemeber.
I never gave anyone consent or permission to make decisions about my life other than me. Where is a first world problems meme when you need one. It is a huge problem that whoever wins will govern with the consent of 30% of the adult population. Not sure that there is a realistic solution better than just hoping more people start to both care and participate, but it's scary that 30% of the country can send us to war or take away people's rights / etc. Common sense leads to the conclusion that the 40% are evenly split, or ambivalent to the policies of government and can thus be removed from the 100%. Common sense further dictates that a vote cannot be equated to one's consent, as those who do not vote are still bound by obligation and restriction to/from the government and the society. Compulsory voting is a possible solution. There's an article in the SMH today arguing that it's also a solution to gridlock and fringe issues getting so much attention: The single most important reform for the US proposed by Mann and Ornstein is probably the most controversial - the Australian system of compulsory voting. ''In both primaries and general elections in the US, party professionals and consultants focus on bases: how to gin up the turnout of the party's ideological base and suppress the turnout of the other side,'' they write. This has ''encouraged a concentration on hot-button issues that appeal to the party bases, like guns, abortion, immigration and same-sex marriage, and led to more and more extreme rhetoric and exaggerated positions''. With compulsory voting, the incentive to drive turnout through appeals to the extremes would evaporate. The new incentive would be to appeal to the moderate middle. Which is why Australian elections are never fought on guns or abortion but on the earnest middle issues like mortgage rates. Source: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/us-looks-down-under-to-stop-poll-rot-20121105-28tz1.html The low information voter would run rampant with compulsory voting and that would probably be the worst possible solution. You assume that a majority of voters have some sort of idea what the candidates are like in the first place. I can assure you otherwise. The majority are not low information voters, they might have wrong information but they are not low information. do we really want to force people incapable of forging their own opinion to vote?
People having a lack of opinion is not the problem at all, it's almost the opposite.
|
An article on lies.
PolitiFact has chronicled 19 “pants on fire” lies by Mr. Romney and 7 by Mr. Obama since 2007, but Mr. Romney’s whoppers have been qualitatively far worse: the “apology tour,” the “government takeover of health care,” the “$4,000 tax hike on middle class families,” the gutting of welfare-to-work rules, the shipment by Chrysler of jobs from Ohio to China. Said one of his pollsters, Neil Newhouse, “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.” To be sure, the Obama campaign has certainly had its own share of dissembling and distortion, including about Mr. Romney’s positions on abortion and foreign aid. But nothing in it — or in past campaigns, for that matter — has equaled the efforts of the Romney campaign in this realm. Its fundamental disdain for facts is something wholly new. The voters, of course, may well recoil against these cynical manipulations at the polls. But win or lose, the Romney campaign has placed a big and historic bet on the proposition that facts can be ignored, more or less, with impunity. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/06/opinion/the-real-loser-truth.html?ref=opinion
There's also Romney's lie about covering preexisting conditions in the first debate (and elsewhere), which was fact-checked by his own aide right after the debate.
If you don't have health insurance because of a preexisting condition, and voted for Romney believing his plan covers preexisting conditions, you could die. That's got to be the most reckless lie told his campaign.
|
On November 06 2012 19:23 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 19:12 DOUDOU wrote:On November 06 2012 19:05 Adreme wrote:On November 06 2012 18:51 aksfjh wrote:On November 06 2012 18:39 Adreme wrote:On November 06 2012 18:29 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 06 2012 18:23 Chargelot wrote:On November 06 2012 18:18 Feartheguru wrote:On November 06 2012 17:25 Signet wrote:On November 06 2012 15:52 Sub40APM wrote:
[quote]
Where is a first world problems meme when you need one. It is a huge problem that whoever wins will govern with the consent of 30% of the adult population. Not sure that there is a realistic solution better than just hoping more people start to both care and participate, but it's scary that 30% of the country can send us to war or take away people's rights / etc. Common sense leads to the conclusion that the 40% are evenly split, or ambivalent to the policies of government and can thus be removed from the 100%. Common sense further dictates that a vote cannot be equated to one's consent, as those who do not vote are still bound by obligation and restriction to/from the government and the society. Compulsory voting is a possible solution. There's an article in the SMH today arguing that it's also a solution to gridlock and fringe issues getting so much attention: The single most important reform for the US proposed by Mann and Ornstein is probably the most controversial - the Australian system of compulsory voting. ''In both primaries and general elections in the US, party professionals and consultants focus on bases: how to gin up the turnout of the party's ideological base and suppress the turnout of the other side,'' they write. This has ''encouraged a concentration on hot-button issues that appeal to the party bases, like guns, abortion, immigration and same-sex marriage, and led to more and more extreme rhetoric and exaggerated positions''. With compulsory voting, the incentive to drive turnout through appeals to the extremes would evaporate. The new incentive would be to appeal to the moderate middle. Which is why Australian elections are never fought on guns or abortion but on the earnest middle issues like mortgage rates. Source: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/us-looks-down-under-to-stop-poll-rot-20121105-28tz1.html The low information voter would run rampant with compulsory voting and that would probably be the worst possible solution. You assume that a majority of voters have some sort of idea what the candidates are like in the first place. I can assure you otherwise. The majority are not low information voters, they might have wrong information but they are not low information. do we really want to force people incapable of forging their own opinion to vote? People having a lack of opinion is not the problem at all, it's almost the opposite.
In my opinion, not having an opinion and not participating in democracy seems to create a weak democracy.
But people like Comte would say otherwise
Men are not allowed to think freely about chemistry and biology: why should they be allowed to think freely about political philosophy?
|
On November 06 2012 19:38 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 19:23 nihlon wrote:On November 06 2012 19:12 DOUDOU wrote:On November 06 2012 19:05 Adreme wrote:On November 06 2012 18:51 aksfjh wrote:On November 06 2012 18:39 Adreme wrote:On November 06 2012 18:29 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 06 2012 18:23 Chargelot wrote:On November 06 2012 18:18 Feartheguru wrote:On November 06 2012 17:25 Signet wrote:
[quote]
It is a huge problem that whoever wins will govern with the consent of 30% of the adult population. Not sure that there is a realistic solution better than just hoping more people start to both care and participate, but it's scary that 30% of the country can send us to war or take away people's rights / etc. Common sense leads to the conclusion that the 40% are evenly split, or ambivalent to the policies of government and can thus be removed from the 100%. Common sense further dictates that a vote cannot be equated to one's consent, as those who do not vote are still bound by obligation and restriction to/from the government and the society. Compulsory voting is a possible solution. There's an article in the SMH today arguing that it's also a solution to gridlock and fringe issues getting so much attention: The single most important reform for the US proposed by Mann and Ornstein is probably the most controversial - the Australian system of compulsory voting. ''In both primaries and general elections in the US, party professionals and consultants focus on bases: how to gin up the turnout of the party's ideological base and suppress the turnout of the other side,'' they write. This has ''encouraged a concentration on hot-button issues that appeal to the party bases, like guns, abortion, immigration and same-sex marriage, and led to more and more extreme rhetoric and exaggerated positions''. With compulsory voting, the incentive to drive turnout through appeals to the extremes would evaporate. The new incentive would be to appeal to the moderate middle. Which is why Australian elections are never fought on guns or abortion but on the earnest middle issues like mortgage rates. Source: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/us-looks-down-under-to-stop-poll-rot-20121105-28tz1.html The low information voter would run rampant with compulsory voting and that would probably be the worst possible solution. You assume that a majority of voters have some sort of idea what the candidates are like in the first place. I can assure you otherwise. The majority are not low information voters, they might have wrong information but they are not low information. do we really want to force people incapable of forging their own opinion to vote? People having a lack of opinion is not the problem at all, it's almost the opposite. In my opinion, not having an opinion and not participating in democracy seems to create a weak democracy. But people like Comte would say otherwise Show nested quote + Men are not allowed to think freely about chemistry and biology: why should they be allowed to think freely about political philosophy?
Had men not thought freely about chemistry and biology, we would not know of their unwavering truths which cannot be shifted by my free thought. But politics and philosophy are not physical sciences. They don't exist without us. They would be different if we started over. They change from day to day on a per person basis. They are subjective. Dependent.
As far as democracy goes, if it is the general will of the majority that they are willing to suffer the consequences of the decisions made by the minority, then democracy is operating strongly, even if only 11 people voted.
|
On November 06 2012 18:39 Souma wrote:
Americans would not be happy being forced to vote. They'd probably write in Barney Stinson.
And that would be perfectly fine! Donkey votes send a clear message! Low voter turnout does not.
|
On November 06 2012 18:29 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 18:23 Chargelot wrote:On November 06 2012 18:18 Feartheguru wrote:On November 06 2012 17:25 Signet wrote:On November 06 2012 15:52 Sub40APM wrote:On November 06 2012 15:47 Zaqwert wrote:
Today ~30% of people will vote for one guy, ~30% of people will vote for a different guy, ~40% of people won't vote at all.
And the guy who wins will go immediately start forcing a whole bunch of crap on the other 70% of the country because of his "mandate"
Democracy is a joke.
I never asked to be part of this little system, yet I am a slave to it. My rights, my property, my freedoms, all at the whims of millions of other dullards ever couple of years in Novemeber.
I never gave anyone consent or permission to make decisions about my life other than me. Where is a first world problems meme when you need one. It is a huge problem that whoever wins will govern with the consent of 30% of the adult population. Not sure that there is a realistic solution better than just hoping more people start to both care and participate, but it's scary that 30% of the country can send us to war or take away people's rights / etc. Common sense leads to the conclusion that the 40% are evenly split, or ambivalent to the policies of government and can thus be removed from the 100%. Common sense further dictates that a vote cannot be equated to one's consent, as those who do not vote are still bound by obligation and restriction to/from the government and the society. Compulsory voting is a possible solution. There's an article in the SMH today arguing that it's also a solution to gridlock and fringe issues getting so much attention: Show nested quote +The single most important reform for the US proposed by Mann and Ornstein is probably the most controversial - the Australian system of compulsory voting. ''In both primaries and general elections in the US, party professionals and consultants focus on bases: how to gin up the turnout of the party's ideological base and suppress the turnout of the other side,'' they write. This has ''encouraged a concentration on hot-button issues that appeal to the party bases, like guns, abortion, immigration and same-sex marriage, and led to more and more extreme rhetoric and exaggerated positions''. With compulsory voting, the incentive to drive turnout through appeals to the extremes would evaporate. The new incentive would be to appeal to the moderate middle. Which is why Australian elections are never fought on guns or abortion but on the earnest middle issues like mortgage rates. Source: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/us-looks-down-under-to-stop-poll-rot-20121105-28tz1.html
I think fixing up the system would be a more logical first step. As I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, only voters in the so-called swing-states actually matter, since the winner of a state gets all the state's electors. If electors were given proportionally to the public vote (i.e if a candidate gets 80% of the vote in a state, he'll get 80% of the electors, not all of them.), I think it would do a lot to get people more involved in the democratic process, and it's suddenly not only voters in the swing-states with real influence.
|
On November 06 2012 14:10 Zaqwert wrote:
For all those worshipping at the altar of Nate Silver, why don't you throw your life savings on betting Obama to win?
Most bettings sites are showing him at about ~66% to win but the beloved 538 model shows him at like 93%. You don't get very many opportunities at an instant 27% expected ROI.
Over here I would as the betting company paddy power has already started paying out people who bet on obama to win.
|
A system that involves more than 2 parties having a non-trivial participation would be far more effective than compulsory voting.
With just 2 parties going up against eachother, it becomes a matter of the one trying to make the other look bad, ideally with one-liners and stuff pulled out of context. Once you have a larger number of candidates / parties, the focus will turn much more to parties bringing their own message. In addition, things will be more moderate and less pulled to the extremes, because with just 2 parties, each can just pick their extreme of the spectrum and sit there, with a large moderate crowd having to literally choose between the lesser of two evils.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aImU4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZPZom.jpg)
