What I was wondering, and would have been off topic to question in the thread in which it appeared, was whether you agree and if so do you think there is a remedy?
Last edited by a moderator:
I read a post from Hayabusa Rider on political choice that got me wondering:
- Thread starter Moonbeam
- Start date
What I was wondering, and would have been off topic to question in the thread in which it appeared, was whether you agree and if so do you think there is a remedy?
Tristicus
Diamond Member
Pliablemoose
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 25,195
- 0
- 56
The US public is too stupid to vote in their own best interests, were there an IQ test and a minimum IQ required to cast a vote, I suspect the outcome and system would have evolved quite differently...
What I was wondering, and would have been off topic to question in the thread in which it appeared, was whether you agree and if so do you think there is a remedy?[/QUOTE]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not responding to him, but you said it, so:
The statement greatly oversimplifies the situation. It has some truth and some non-truth to it.
Missing, for example, are the primaries providing more choice than just the nominees; missing is the fact that before them, the race is open to nearly anyone, providing great freedom to who runs.
For example, following 12 years of consolidating wealth and power by the rich class in this country under Reagand and Bush, it wasn't just a Democract of the same class who became President, it was a sort of nobody from Arkansas who was not a Rockefeller. It 'could have been anyone' in the spirit of that sentiment - to an extent. Of course he'd made the right allies along the way.
However, the statement partly rings true because ther are existing, entrenched, concentrated powers that play a disproportionate role in 'filtering' who can be a serious candidate. Dennis Kucinich might have great political qualities, but he lacks the allies to have a chance. Here in California, while Med Whitman, wealthy former CEO of Ebay and ally of business, can manufacture an instant 'serious campaign' with her money, the mayor of San Francisco dropped out for lack of fundraising; her Republican opponent, Tom Campbell, has been respected for decades by both parties, but is seen to have extremely long odds over money.
Anyone with an interest in a third party is familiar with the feeling the system is rigged for the two parties, too.
You ask what can be done - for that issue, I've suggested states adopt ranked voting.
For the other issue, I've discussed the 'solutions' that include reducing the role money plays in campaigns, reversing the recent court decision, improving the corporate media coverage (the corporations who own the media *love* the political campaign industry providing many billions of dollars, and are hardly friendly to airing candidates who don't pay up and such reforms).
It seems it would take a grass roots movement, able to sway some elections, to get backkng to change the sotuation. How lkely is that? Not very, unfortunately.
Last edited:
Tristicus
Diamond Member
First of all, no, the public is not too stupid, they are just misinformed and don't pay attention.
Second, no, because if someone non-white failed it, racism would be instantly declared.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
I dont agree with you very often, but I think you have stated it pretty well, and I agree (not that it matters).
To expand on what Craig said, I think it would take a concerted effort to get a viable 3rd party candidate into high office. It would require, as Craig said, limiting campaign funding and advertising. How to do that without infringing on constitutional rights? I dont think you could. That said, Im afraid that alone wouldnt do it, and this is the weak point in a solution: the apathy of the typical voter. Most people dont want to do their own research. Most people want their issues handed to them on a silver platter. Thus, I would say, we have the system we have now as a direct result of what voters want. Not because of some type of conspiracy. Hell, everyone gets a vote, and it wouldnt take much, theoretically, to get John Doe elected to POTUS. Afterall, candidate R and candidate D could spend $10 million campaigning, but if the public actually pulled the lever for John Doe, it would be done. Unfortunately, I dont know what would get the average voter out of their chair and active.
Last edited:
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 61
Well, if we as a society accept this, then we are. And half of me does. The other half of me sees Rand Paul, and maybe even Peter Schiff, snagging Senate seats. Not exactly what most of you would want, but relevant to the OP nonetheless.
Was it Zebo that pointed out that when frustration builds to revolutionaly levels we will get a fascist or communist dictator? Profound frustration and rage are ways self haters fuck themselves.
I personally think the answer is well personal. All I can do about this is be aware that what I think and believe and what I do and really believe are not the same. I think all I can do is be as aware as I can that I am the only real enemy I have. The day I really feel I deserve better than what is I will act toward others as I wish they act toward me on a higher level.
Hayabusa is absolutely right. We've come to accept that we have only a viable choice of two idiots, two sides of the same crooked coin. That's just never going to change, because once the parties become entrenched (as they have), they have everything in their hands to make the rules such that nobody else can infringe on their turf.
Sure in the primaries you can have other candidates, but the reality is that without massive funding, you can't win senate or house seats, especially if you don't have the backing of the party powers.
Kucinich is not a good example of the failure of the system though, he's a loon so he's an example of a good thing that he can't get any traction.
Sure in the primaries you can have other candidates, but the reality is that without massive funding, you can't win senate or house seats, especially if you don't have the backing of the party powers.
Kucinich is not a good example of the failure of the system though, he's a loon so he's an example of a good thing that he can't get any traction.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 61
Well, that would depend upon the direction the people allow their frustration to take them. It would not be easy to take on "the establishment." The more we fight them, the harder they will fight back to remain in power. The progressives are already called socialists, and the libertarians "anti-government."
cubeless
Diamond Member
- Sep 17, 2001
- 4,295
- 1
- 81
in the long run this seems inevitable with political systems and people...
bread and circus was the plan back when the empire got too big in a past regime, i have the feeling that we may be getting to that point now in the us...
never before has any political system like ours tried to encompass so many constituents... i think it ends up, like many things, an issue of the numbers... too many people/interests + too many issues = fail... when you have a smaller total number of people some % of them isn't a critical mass, and/or there's a chance to reach out to them... now we are at the point where the % is so many people that they are a full mob with all the pleasant attributes that a mob possesses... the founding popsters were pretty bright guys, but i don't think they ever envisioned 300+ million people 'participating' in the system...
maybe it's time to let ca and ny become their own countries, and try to start over again at a more manageable level...
peonyu
Platinum Member
- Mar 12, 2003
- 2,038
- 23
- 81
I agree. Theres really no way around it, its just the truth with few exceptions. The Clintons, Kennedys, Bushs, all come from long lines of being in politics. And in a country with 300 million people, supposedly a Democracy...the chances of them serving continous terms should be slim to none. And a Presidents son [GWB] becoming president should be almost non-existant [let alone his other son being a Governor at the same time]. But its happened, and continues to happen so its the truth. Our choices are hand-picked by people outside of the public eye, and without our say on it. Even Clinton and Obama were picked without our consent when they ran against each other for the Democratic ticket. Either way it went, it was a good pick for the Democrats since they chose both of them.
Id really like to see Ralph Nader win the Presidency, not that I am a personal fan of his, but the shakeup of a third party winning would be immense. It would have most of the thugs in Washington confused since thier idea of politics is shattered. Its not longer just us [rep or dem] vs them [rep or dem] but a third party with other ideas [as opposed to the same ideas with rep/dem, just worded differently]. This country really needs a shakeup and a change, and Obama is in no way shape or form change [besides having darkskin...big deal, even though thats what got him elected more or less, and picked over Hilary].
Last edited:
peonyu
Platinum Member
- Mar 12, 2003
- 2,038
- 23
- 81
Its better than what we have now, which is buddy george getting the seat since hes friends with so and so in congress.
cubeless
Diamond Member
- Sep 17, 2001
- 4,295
- 1
- 81
nah, bo is going to run as the coffee party candidate next time, since he can get people to believe anything he says... he'll disavow the feckless dems and become the 3rd party champion... hey, he can run as the candidate of hope and change!!!
he's a natural for the coffee party: black and bitter...
peonyu
Platinum Member
- Mar 12, 2003
- 2,038
- 23
- 81
Yea and the other party would have Hillary as the candicate, next one would have Bill. Idk guess there could be 200 parties, each with one of thier buddies as the candidate. Yep your right thats probably how it would work out, cant over-estimate how corrupt Washington is now.
IronWing
No Lifer
- Jul 20, 2001
- 72,464
- 33,081
- 136
Here's my solution to the problem posed in the OP:
1) Get rid of the primary system. Let the parties pick their own candidates with no public sanction. I'm not a member of any political party, why should I get to pick candidates for a party? By ending the current system of primaries we smash the myth that the majority of voters are in one major party or the the other. Very few voters are dues paying members of any party. I really don't care how the parties develop their candidates. They can caucus, they can huddle in a smoke-free room, they can stage duels, as long they do it all by themselves. The idea is that candidates should be reflective of the parties, not the general voting public. Also, this will help defeat the tribalism that we've seen with party-line voters.
2) On a state-by-state basis, with no change to the electoral college itself, shift to proportional representation in the electoral college. If a state has ten delegates and one candidate gets 54% of the vote, a second candidate gets 40%, and Kucinich gets 7% then split up the delegates accordingly 5,4,1. The current winner takes all system locks in majority parties by making sure minority parties aren't even present in the electoral college.
Edit: Campaign funding reform:
1) Declare corporations and all non-human entities to be non-persons. Pass a Constitutional amendment if needed but we need to stop bestowing rights on paper creations. This would greatly simplify campaign funding reform as the question of corporate free speech rights would be moot.
2) Drastically shorten the campaign season. No campaigning until x months before an election. Obviously this would take some work to define campaigning and likely would require another Constitutional amendment.
1) Get rid of the primary system. Let the parties pick their own candidates with no public sanction. I'm not a member of any political party, why should I get to pick candidates for a party? By ending the current system of primaries we smash the myth that the majority of voters are in one major party or the the other. Very few voters are dues paying members of any party. I really don't care how the parties develop their candidates. They can caucus, they can huddle in a smoke-free room, they can stage duels, as long they do it all by themselves. The idea is that candidates should be reflective of the parties, not the general voting public. Also, this will help defeat the tribalism that we've seen with party-line voters.
2) On a state-by-state basis, with no change to the electoral college itself, shift to proportional representation in the electoral college. If a state has ten delegates and one candidate gets 54% of the vote, a second candidate gets 40%, and Kucinich gets 7% then split up the delegates accordingly 5,4,1. The current winner takes all system locks in majority parties by making sure minority parties aren't even present in the electoral college.
Edit: Campaign funding reform:
1) Declare corporations and all non-human entities to be non-persons. Pass a Constitutional amendment if needed but we need to stop bestowing rights on paper creations. This would greatly simplify campaign funding reform as the question of corporate free speech rights would be moot.
2) Drastically shorten the campaign season. No campaigning until x months before an election. Obviously this would take some work to define campaigning and likely would require another Constitutional amendment.
Last edited:
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 31,013
- 46,620
- 136
I agree, and think that the recent, horrible Supreme Court ruling on corporations/unions will prove to be the mortar for the brick wall that is the flawed 2 party system.
Vested interests have their claws too deep into our government, I'm not sure they can be extricated at this point. Our love of money and power is too great.
Last edited:
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 61
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 31,013
- 46,620
- 136
You're making something out of my analogy that wasn't implied at all.
A wall made of only bricks is still a wall. A wall complete with mortar means it's a tough wall, harder to bring down.
I view the ruling as just the latest gain by the interests that have been 'buying' the system since the 70s. We can differ on dates, but my point was that whatever fixes we can envision for this 2 party clusterfvck, big money now has more at it's disposal to keep the game in it's favor.
Well, I agree with what he is getting at. However, I don't really blame the parties. I see them as a product of a lazy and unmotivated citizenry. Our best elections have something like 60% voter turnout. The parties don't even really bother courting these voters...who could substantially influence elections.
In my opinion, the real danger to a democracy is not political parties, but voter apathy.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
I'd say they are interrelated. I didn't vote in this last Presidential election (the only one I've missed) because I didn't care for either choice, and I never felt there was one.
Remember that even if we had a hundred prospective candidates from both parties, the fact remains that they must pass a party litmus test. It's not written anywhere, but party loyalty is paramount, especially at the national level. It isn't just the person but the platform which is decidedly Democratic or Republican. Other ideas have no place outside the predefined borders of their thoughts.
Conform or be cast out.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter