Randomness

[zamb]

i am a cynical mutha who has an extremely difficult time believing any politician acts from true altruism and love for his country/state/city/constituency. i know there are always agendas, some not very well hidden. it's human nature. not cool but until we're rewired, it just needs to be accepted. i pretty much ignore politics these daze but i hate self righteous,sanctimonious positions and go out of my way to vote opposing them. speaking of voting, i have, in the past, gone to my pole and not voted for any presidential candidate. i go to prove that i'm not apathetic, just disgusted.

also,

I am from a country, where for all the mess that it is in, the true leader and party that runs the country is elected by a legitimate democratic majority. Here is America, the electoral college nonsense makes a complete mockery of that. what is the point of a Popular vote when the elections are in large part determined by states like Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida?

I think its time for a review of this flawed system.

Factor in again that in reality, BIG money has become so significant in election nowadays that politics at the highest level makes a complete mockery of the democratic process, regardless of how strong a leader you may be, or how sound and beneficial your policies are to the nation, you will only go so far as your pandering to big companies and rich people who will support you enough to buy the ads and campaign enough to go the whole mile........

[Faust]

Zam, math is math. If you don't vote for one party, you are effectively voting for another party by abstaining, which is what the DFW quote is about. As a wise man once told me, you may quit politics, but politics don't quit you. And pretending that Democrats and Republicans are alike is sheer nonsense. If you want to think that you are choosing lesser of the two evils, I am with you, but you are still choosing lesser of the two evils. It is absolutely irresponsible to not vote.

[lalilulelo]

Well said Faust.

This seems fitting to post, some of you may be familiar with this quote:

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers… instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."

Georgetown Professor Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope

I think there are some broad strokes within that quote, and it was over 50 years ago now that it was written. The democrats are by and large the only choice for the sane man.

[jippos]

To Zam's point re: presidential elections are in large part determined by states like Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida, this problem will hopefully soon (or not so soon?) cease to be a problem. National Popular Vote is about halfway there.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/national-popula/

[endorphinz]

tv,net & phone out but thankfully I've still got power. been watching the second season of Boss. it fits in nicely with my view on politics. i highly recommend the series.

[BSR]

I find this thought heavily misleading because it affirms that a blank vote (or a protest vote) is in fact a vote, but it misses to portray it as a deliberative stance. I am not sure about the US voting system and the consequences of too few people showing up, but in some countries that is an important way of showing that the candidates just don't cover the choices of the population.
Also, speaking now of the second half of my previous post (that democrats need to be in opposition in order to strengthen their agenda), I am wondering whether, for example, strategic voting for Republicans would bring long term benefits (so, for example, by allowing for the media to finally pick up on criticizing what they've been avoiding for so long).

agreed. also, DFW's point relies on a hidden premise, which could be vaguely said to be "the outcome of the vote bears consequences over one's life". I don't know how it is in the States, but I'm pretty sure the premise is false for many people in many countries in the world.

[Patroklus]

comments section makes me want to gas the internet

[Faust]

agreed. also, DFW's point relies on a hidden premise, which could be vaguely said to be "the outcome of the vote bears consequences over one's life". I don't know how it is in the States, but I'm pretty sure the premise is false for many people in many countries in the world.

But we are talking about the United States here.

Rilu, a blank vote IS a vote. Do the MATH. There is nothing misleading in that quote. Why the hell do you think the Republicans are trying to prevent the poor from voting in the US with the bullshit voter fraud laws?

And if you think there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, AS A WOMAN no less, you must've missed the entire rape/abortion debate. I am guessing you are simply not familiar enough with current US politics.

[sam_tem]

...not to mention refusing to try those responsible for destroying our good name and instituting torture as a national policy, refusing to back bowles-simpson and tackle entitlements, refusing to address tax reform, wiping the slate of global warming from national discussion during election year, watching the DEA further entrench it's position on medicinal weed despite saying it's a states rights issue, fully believing that states should have the right to deny people civil rights based on who they love, etc.

This administration has certainly been a big sigh of relief, but if you're a true liberal then you should have no qualms saying F- Obama. The Dems totally cowtow to the boomers just like the Reps and have no interest or intent to address the issues that matter to us millenials. However, as the old adage goes if a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound? Not voting means you don't exist and your concerns are invalid because there's nobody there to listen to what you have to say. That's one of the main problems here, young folks don't make up a considerable constituency so there concerns are worthless because the politicians have no reason to come seeking those votes knowing they won't materialize.


edit: meant to go after ur previous post Rilu, forgot i was on a long conf. call there but i just disagree entirely. not voting only gives politicians further incentive to ignore your concerns.

they know who votes, the ages of those that vote, where they vote, how they vote, why they vote, etc. etc. etc. parties focus their funding and efforts on getting votes from reliable groups that are willing to provide their support in exchange for dialogue with the party. because "protest voters" are widespread, scattered among a diverse set of issues, often sporadic voters and cannot come together to form a coherent dialogue its usually in the best interest of the parties to ignore these voters and focus on building up their main bases and winning support from old constituents. don't assume inaction is signifying anything to the parties because it doesn't give them anything to go off of.

[zamb]

I don't have time to address all the comments that were made, but Faust idea that a no vote is a vote is nonsense. It is nonsense because it assumes that the only way to participate in the political process is by voting, and that one should only vote for the party that closest resembles the values the individual would like to see as a part of the society.

Yes I agree that there is a significant difference between democrats and republicans......I am not stupid. Like you I am a foreigner who is aware of our society and in some ways this gives us a certain perspective that people born in this country may not necessarily have, in so far as they may have never lived outside of the US and experience other kinds of political structures to compare with Politics in America.
What I am saying is to just blindly vote regardless of how disgusted you are with politics and the party you would like to see in power does nothing, absolutely nothing to make better the mess that disgust you in the first place. It is for this reason why OWS should not have been rendered irrelevant, because protesting against corruption, against social and political ills, against injustice, and doing these things outside of the voting booth should be a central part of the political process.........these things to me are even more important than voting.

Here are a few reasons why?

Because it says to politicians, that the slime, the blatant lies and the ineffectiveness in the early stages of your term will not be tolerated only to be dressed up and sugar coated by spin doctors just to get you back into power. Politicians are there to help the nation become better for the people, not to falsify the reality and perpetuate their own legacy


Here are some of the problems that I would like to see addressed that none of the candidates for president wants to address

1.) Stronger gun laws to get weapons out of the hands of the mental ill and the downright evil. under the current system, any jackass with money can have a gun collection. For what?
as far as I am concerned, you don't need a gun unless you are a police or a soldier, If you need a gun for hunting, you can rent one and then return it.......I don't even support recreational hunting anyways. (funny how Michael Vick is a slime bag criminal for owning a dog fighting ring, but people can just go into the while and gun down animals and the are respected for that!)

2.) A comprehensive immigration reform to address border protection, but provide a path to legal status for many people who are working here and integral to the american work force

3.) A systematic approach to the rehabilitation and increased productivity of small time criminals whose actions are not life threatening to the society rather than wasting their lives away in prison

4.) Greater transparency and honesty and strict penalties for blatant lies by politicians seeking for us to put the into high offices of power

5.) Overhaul of the Education system to provide good, inexpensive routes to Advanced level education and skills (trade) training for people who either cannot, or don't necessarily want the traditional college education. i am speaking here of something like the kind of apprenticeship programs available in germany.

6.) the destruction and regulation of these newly made "Super pacs" that effectively makes the electoral process a system that can be bought by the party/ person with the biggest financial war chest, and continue to place elected officials in a position where they are almost compelled to do favors for those who spend the most to get them elected


there is a lot more issues, but I will stop here...

[sam_tem]

what's your solution to the problems of status quo? just ignoring the whole thing and voting whatever comes from the dem. side, no matter what?

of course not, but to actually go to the polls and vote for someone. then, go to city hall meetings, get involved, and say "i voted for you, now what the hell are you going to do to make my life better and how are you going to address my concerns." I still don't understand how what you're proposing, simply not supporting anyone for office, changes anything though.

boycotting H&M and boycotting politics is two different beasts entirely. simply boycotting H&M by not buying their clothes does nothing to change their stance whatsoever, it only comes into play when you spend your money elsewhere (thereby placing your vote for the alternatives) and only then at that point can H&M recognize that there is market share/customers that they're losing to competitors. then they can begin to analyze why they're losing market share and what their competitors are doing to secure their customers. i'm quickly jotting this stuff down and it obviously takes much more time to clearly discuss these types of issues, but the point is the mere act of not buying their clothes signifies absolutely nothing........until you buy and vote with your money elsewhere.

think of it this way, once a politican is done appeasing those that supported him and begins to think of how he'll stay in office and win enough support to further enact his desired changes, do you really think he's going to start pondering what of the hundreds of possibilities each percentage of the non-voters were trying to protest. of course not, changing his message may alienate some of his supporters that actually did vote and it's much easier to secure votes and support by analyzing why his competitors supporters don't like him and chose the alternative.

if you're simply not supporting anyone then how can you support change at all? better to choose your most desired version of status quo cuz politics moves slow and it takes time and lots of dialogue to change decade old traditions, if not centuries. not voting means you lose your chance to vote for your desired status quo and those that you feel are most capable of change.

now, it's one thing to say that you morally can't support either and refuse to vote, i can understand that, but to believe that you're actually doing something to evince change in this country by simply not voting is a bit foolhardy.

[lowrey]

boycotting H&M and boycotting politics is two different beasts entirely.

I agree but disagree as to why - boycotting H&M is literally money out of their pockets so I think it aboslutely does matter, even if the effect is relatively small. not voting, however, doesn't take any money away from politicians or the government. So do they really need to care if the voting % drops, if its more or less constant between the parties? (I mean that its not 15% from one and 0% from the other)

The idea of making a statement by not voting is nice and all, and it might cause the parties to ponder over it, but outside the fantasy someone gets elected anyway, and it just might someone who will shit up the country even more.

moreover, there are various other channels where opinions of those who abstain from voting can be spread and heard (media being one of them).

What are such channels? Not in theory, in a perfect world, but realistically speaking. Media is always biased in one direction or the other. OWS has been one of the very few movements that made itself heard, but regardless of its massive size (spreading across the country and the world) it seems to have been already dismissed and forgotten to some extent. In my view, and this is of course from outside the country so its only based on observations through the media, there is very little hope to make any sort of a "statement" as long as the US political system remains in this ludicrous state (the two-party bickering™).

[Patroklus]

The question is, do they really need to care if the voting % drops,

[...]

there is little hope to make any sort of a "statement" as long as the US political system remains in this ludicrous state (the two-party bickering™).

[zamb]

As a Christian, one of the main problems I have with Churches lining up behind political parties of any ideology, is that I believe that for all the failings of the church, it ought to the premier place for the preservation, of truth, justice and morality in the society.........unfortunately this has often not been the case. and this is a serious indictment on the Church
In a situation such as the present one, Indeed the failures of President Obama should be Pointed out,.......

However, and this is specifically to Rilu's position
One cannot vote republican for this reason:
There are many good issues that the president has attempted to address in benefit of the Nation, and many of these have been blocked, not because they aren't good, but because they are interested in seeing him fail.......So essentially to vote republicans back into power is to reward them for screwing up the nation even further, after a republican administration had screwed it up in the first place.

These people have placed partisan interest above the collective good of the nation, and you just don't elect people like that, as then you are effectively rewarding them for that

A fundamental question needs to be asked: How can we trust a politician like Mitt Romney, who to professes to be a Mormon, yet lies with the ease and straight face that he does?

Do we want someone who is dishonest with such ease to be President of the nation?
I think not.

Do we want someone like Paul Ryan, who in his RNC speech, found it necessary to lie about the time he ran in a marathon, when such a feat had absolutely nothing to do with his qualification for VP in the first place?

I have many friends who are democrats, and when I said that president Obama had not lived up to the expectations (and i mean the realistic ones) that could have been fulfilled in his first term, they wanted to rip my head off. I guess its a case where many people are not willing to admit when the people they support are failing, and to be honest those are the best kind of supporters politicians need, because it keeps them on their toes.

OWS should not have been rendered invalid, but given necessary support but we live in a society, where as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said, the damn people lack passion.

Most people nowadays are only concerned about their immediate circumstances, and if a problem does not critically affect their immediate lives then its fine for it to go on........we have short attention spans, selective memory and are not willing to endure the burden and long term struggle that is often needed to realize meaningful change in broken systems whether they be political or otherwise.......

[sam_tem]

I agree but disagree as to why - boycotting H&M is literally money out of their pockets so I think it aboslutely does matter, even if the effect is relatively small. not voting, however, doesn't take any money away from politicians or the government. So do they really need to care if the voting % drops, if its more or less constant between the parties?

but boycotting H&M isn't money out of their pockets until you've given that money to someone else, and thus voted. otherwise, that money isn't a loss for them as it doesn't even exist in the marketplace, you're just not buying anything for them to try and appeal and market to you anyways. you boycott H&M by buying clothing from companies with better practices, not by just not spending money at all.

and yes, not voting does impact the funding of political campaigns. 3rd party candidates receive federal funding for campaigning based on meeting certain percentage thresholds in elections. institutional/corporate funding for political campaigns is often related to the percentage of votes from certain demographics.

on the other hand, you may get romney and the us population finally waking up to being skeptic towards what he's doing.

so where was this massive sea change in voting patterns after 8 years of Bush?

52.9% vs. 45.7% - 2008
50.7% vs. 48.3% - 2004

it's really important that you understand how voting patterns change and i think you'll find it's not nearly as flexible as you'd like it to be. everyone votes for different reasons and much of it is generational/social and is very much impervious to the performance of their own party. most are uninformed voters and will continue to remain so. their is a lot of history and stats you should dig into here that will dump a big cold bucket of water on your hopes. do you seriously propose we do another 8 years of Romney just to see if it may affect voter preferences? how do you claim innocence against Romney's policies if he comes in and starts shutting down the cost savings in obamacare, planned parenthood, lowering taxes, increasing drone strikes and potentially starting another gulf war? those aren't odds you place a bet on. this is a very tight election, as all elections will be moving forward.

saw the sotter stuff, but it's just complaining, nothing that relates to infrastructure of politics and how to evoke a change in elected politicians.