2008 Presidential Candidates

[Susan]

the only politics i'll discuss here - because of how heated it can get - is that they need to do away with the electoral votes. Because with this system in places, every vote doesn't count.

not really

And that is a travesty

[Mr_Vindictive]

the only politics i'll discuss here - because of how heated it can get - is that they need to do away with the electoral votes. Because with this system in places, every vote doesn't count.

not really

And that is a travesty

I agree Susan.  It does seem that no matter what I vote, it won't matter.  That's a shame.  The electoral vote was created because those in power thought that the average person didn't have enough sense to pick a good candidate.  It doesn't matter who you vote for, it's going to come down to the electoral college.

[Zapranoth]

Why is Great Cthulhu not a candidate?

(Why vote for the LESSER evil?)

[Scott]

The thing is that literacy tests, when they were in use, were exclusively used to exclude minorities, especially blacks, from voting.  The questions given to white voters might be something like "Spell the word CAT using the letters C, A, and T in that order" while the question given to blacks might be "Translate this passage from Caesar's GALLIC WARS from the original Latin into Armenian."  The minute you talk about restricting the voting franchise based on ANYTHING you get Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in your face calling you a Klansmen, Nazi, Conservative Bigot (of course, in their lexicon those are all interchangeable terms).  Personally, I would love a constitutional amendment denying all idiots the right to vote forever.

Didn't know it had already been tried. Shame they had to use it that way. That should tell us something about people in general.

I was thinking more in terms of knowing all the candidates full campaign platforms and who knows maybe even American History related to those very concepts. 

I mean it doesn't really seem to matter who wins the election if people only watch for a few sound bites, check the candidates hair, and then go out and vote. Guess that's why they call these political parties. They just bring people in and say vote for me here's some donuts and coffee. For some it's like cheering for you favorite ball team. They don't care what the other candidate is saying because their team must win.

the only politics i'll discuss here - because of how heated it can get - is that they need to do away with the electoral votes. Because with this system in places, every vote doesn't count.

not really

And that is a travesty

Yea, the candidate with the most votes doesn't even win. How does that happen? Not that I wanted John Kerry to win, but it is strange.

What are the chances of the last 2 elections being so close and the country being so divided down the middle? Something smells fishy.

Why is Great Cthulhu not a candidate?

(Why vote for the LESSER evil?)

Put him in for you Zapranoth.

[AndyC]

I'm inclined to agree with the notion that absolute democracy would be disastrous. There are those who advocate using our modern technology to decide every important issue by referendum. Yikes.

The fact is, for all the thoughtful voters out there, there are still a lot of people who are selfish, shortsighted, naive, ignorant or just plain full of crap. People don't carefully compare platforms, or even necessarily base their vote on anything that relevant. The problem with democracy is that you generally get lowest common denominator.

On another point, the two-party question is very interesting, especially since I've had to read up on various voting systems for a couple of editorials I wrote on an electoral reform referendum we had here in Ontario last month. Here, we have what is effectively a two-party system, but we have managed to retain a third major party (and a fourth at the federal level), and we have a bunch of fringe parties all advocating proportional representation as their only hope of winning seats. The proposed proportional system was a godawful mess that would have undermined democracy as far as I could see. Glad it didn't pass. Ironically, the proponents, for all their talk about democracy, were quick to argue with the two-thirds majority who rejected the proposal.

Anyway, one of the interesting things I read was that a French sociologist theorized years ago that any winner-take-all electoral system will naturally tend toward two parties. One of the main reasons is the strategic voting it encourages. People are wary of how votes might split with multiple parties, and many choose to get behind the most palatable candidate who might actually win. Regardless of who's platform you support, the last thing you want is for somebody you can't stand to take office because you voted for somebody who was barely in the race. Especially if the winner only has maybe 30% of the overall vote. In a way, people are forced to choose the lesser of two evils in order to make the most of their vote. Ultimately, only two parties are left standing.

It's more complicated than that, of course, but that's the gist of it. You can see why some people advocate a proportional system as more fair. Imagine the US senate or the house of representatives filled with percentages of Democrats and Republicans (and any other party) based on their share of the popular vote. It sounds good until you ask who decides which politicians get in. Instead of local people elected by a constituency, you have party hacks who finagled their way onto a party-chosen list. They get put into office without really being accountable to voters.

Then there is the inevitable proliferation of parties of various political views, and the agony of trying to get anything done in a government controlled from half a dozen different directions. And the single-issue crackpots who manage to get a seat by scraping together a couple of percent of the overall vote.

No system is without its pitfalls.

[RCMerchant]

Andy C.-speaking of getting the lowest common denominator...ZACHERLE-the Cool Ghoul-is up over all the others in our poll! GO-ZACHERLE!!!!      

[Jack]

I went with none of the above.  All I want is lower taxes and less government, and for people like me there's really no reason to show up at the polls. 

[lester]

jack- not to be a nerd, but if those are your concerns I'd strongly recommend the clip of Ron Paul on the Jay Leno show I posted a few threads below or check out his columns as lewrockwell.com  i think you will be pleasently surprised at how he addreses those issues and I'd becurious to see what you thought if you have the time

[Scott]

I'm inclined to agree with the notion that absolute democracy would be disastrous. There are those who advocate using our modern technology to decide every important issue by referendum. Yikes.

I agree that using techonology could be a scary thing for voting, but I just can't stand directionless parties. I really don't believe the Democrats nor Republicans represent what the new world should be about.

The fact is, for all the thoughtful voters out there, there are still a lot of people who are selfish, shortsighted, naive, ignorant or just plain full of crap. People don't carefully compare platforms, or even necessarily base their vote on anything that relevant. The problem with democracy is that you generally get lowest common denominator.

Guess we can't just have some standard for knowledgable voting rights. Besides what is real knowledge? People just say stuff and they feel they have to defend it even if they deep down know they are wrong. No one has a right to judge I suppose. It's all up in the air. Free grabs for anyone clever enough to get in office.

On another point, the two-party question is very interesting, especially since I've had to read up on various voting systems for a couple of editorials I wrote on an electoral reform referendum we had here in Ontario last month. Here, we have what is effectively a two-party system, but we have managed to retain a third major party (and a fourth at the federal level), and we have a bunch of fringe parties all advocating proportional representation as their only hope of winning seats. The proposed proportional system was a godawful mess that would have undermined democracy as far as I could see. Glad it didn't pass. Ironically, the proponents, for all their talk about democracy, were quick to argue with the two-thirds majority who rejected the proposal.

That is interesting. I'll keep this in mind. Forgive me but I've really been bent on a one world goverment and how to get there with the use of all assets and energy to accomplish it. I don't see it now, but someday it will happen. It would be a bit less bloody if we let the big wigs handle it with their corprate interest and buy up what we need.

Just wish they would figure out how we can get 25 hour work week with full benefits. 

Nevermind, some eager beaver would just spoil it and work overtime raising property values, because the landlord/or mortgage company who knows Johnny will work overtime to get a better place to live.

Anyway, one of the interesting things I read was that a French sociologist theorized years ago that any winner-take-all electoral system will naturally tend toward two parties. One of the main reasons is the strategic voting it encourages. People are wary of how votes might split with multiple parties, and many choose to get behind the most palatable candidate who might actually win. Regardless of who's platform you support, the last thing you want is for somebody you can't stand to take office because you voted for somebody who was barely in the race. Especially if the winner only has maybe 30% of the overall vote. In a way, people are forced to choose the lesser of two evils in order to make the most of their vote. Ultimately, only two parties are left standing.

I voted for Republicans for the same reasons, but then again I've never seen any candidate that remotely comes close to my views.

Instead of local people elected by a constituency, you have party hacks who finagled their way onto a party-chosen list. They get put into office without really being accountable to voters.

You mean they wouldn't be accountable to a larger majority of voters? I can see that. That would also mean that current elected candidates are accountable. This is a strange thought. Sorry about the sarcasm.

Then there is the inevitable proliferation of parties of various political views, and the agony of trying to get anything done in a government controlled from half a dozen different directions. And the single-issue crackpots who manage to get a seat by scraping together a couple of percent of the overall vote.

You pointed out a lot of very good things AndyC. This last part about a crackpot managing to scrap together enough votes would be very real and very dangerous. You made it more clear. I will completely rethink the idea of pure democracy. Maybe if the new world thought is held a little longer the answer will come. I'll keep my ears open. Perhaps change equals to much danger.

No system is without its pitfalls.

Would like to thank IndianaSmith and AndyC for very informative responces to our democratic elections systems. More in depth than anything I've heard. Not totally convinced that their isn't another way, but it gives you a new appreciation for the stable form of goverment(s) we have here in the U.S. and Canada.

[AndyC]

Just wish they would figure out how we can get 25 hour work week with full benefits.

You have to love those futurists of the 1950s in their wide-eyed innocence, predicting that technology would make work easy enough that we could all finish our weekly tasks in just a few hours. Had they been businessmen, they would have considered that it would also be possible to lay off several people, make one guy work a 40-hour week, and put all of the extra productivity into profits.

[RapscallionJones]

No Stephen Colbert option?

What a shame!

[Scott]

Just wish they would figure out how we can get 25 hour work week with full benefits.

You have to love those futurists of the 1950s in their wide-eyed innocence, predicting that technology would make work easy enough that we could all finish our weekly tasks in just a few hours. Had they been businessmen, they would have considered that it would also be possible to lay off several people, make one guy work a 40-hour week, and put all of the extra productivity into profits.

Yep, there's just to much daylight.

It's time for the creative leisure mind with all day to do new things and create new things. Rather than only working, eating, and sleeping. We sleep a third of our life, we work the second third, we spend the remaining hours getting ready, driving to work, getting healthy meals together, spending an hour or two with the kids if we're lucky, going to the grocery store, yard work, and maybe a few minutes to figure out how to get out of this sadistic cycle and start our own business or just entertain ourselves. If we are able to save a few dollars and have a job that allows time off you might even get to go on a trip or something.

Actually I get more done when I have a schedule and routine fitting in something new with the spare 5 minutes we get each day. The more time I have off the less I do. Then again if I had a lot of time off I would figure out what to do. Then again I probably wouldn't have any money to do anything if I had lots of time off.

Well according to the stats I've been on this message board for 18 days this year. Nevermind. 

No Stephen Colbert option?

RapscallionJones, your wish is my command. 

[CheezeFlixz]

The electoral college, while many don't like it is in fact the best way to go. I understand why some don't like it, as it is not easy to understand. One if many reason being is that what works best in densely populated area doesn't work in less dense areas and it's the best way, albeit a little flawed to strike a balance in representation of the countries many areas. If you was to go with a popularity contest which the forefathers never intended you get imbalance between the rural and urban areas resulting in strife between those areas leading to what we had in 1861. There is tons of information debating the two options, and time and time again it models show that the electoral college in the end produces the best results for fair and even representation of the nation. Not the winner but the representation.  So would if be fair it a metro area like greater LA with 28 million people or so carries as much weight as a combined number of states could based solely on population? You'd have a rather large areas a little more than ill if you were to try inflict urban values on rural areas. Equally if you based results in area (land mass) alone then in the last election the republicans would have won by a land slide (no pun intended). In fact they'd win most every election is that was the case, so that's not fair either. Again the electoral college will give you the best results, even if you don't like the end results. Our forefathers were very wise men indeed.

edit:typo

[Scott]

Gosh, I'm truely stunned by the knowledge of our forum members. You guys are good. Thanks CheezeFlix. 

What about the eventual One World Goverment?

[CheezeFlixz]

Gosh, I'm truely stunned by the knowledge of our forum members. You guys are good. Thanks CheezeFlix. 

Thank You.

What about the eventual One World Goverment?

Never happen, the UN can't get on the same page. So a OWG would never work and the reason why is the vast range of differences between the nations of this little blue planet. There would be to much give and take that I doubt any nation would accept.
What rights are you willing to give up to appease other nations under a OWG? Will you convert to Islam? Will you put your child to work for 50 cents a day? Do you want to pay 75% taxes to fully support the poor nations? What standard of living would you accept that would be agreeable to the other 6 billion folks. Will you accept Chinese censorship, Indian wages, Russian or Middle Eastern social control, Danish liberalism? Shoot we can't even get states to agree standardized national law.