Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99

 ... 487

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

MessyJessy

MessyJessy

Fort Myers, FL
August 2005

JUL 16, 2007 05:47 PM

herbancowboy said:
What makes Nader unelectable? Could it be the stranglehold on American politics by the "two" parties and corporate media?



Duverger's law

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

JUL 16, 2007 06:10 PM

MessyJessy said:

herbancowboy said:
What makes Nader unelectable? Could it be the stranglehold on American politics by the "two" parties and corporate media?



Duverger's law



Wow. I learned something today. Thanks!

MessyJessy

MessyJessy

Fort Myers, FL
August 2005

JUL 16, 2007 06:11 PM

NickFaust said:

MessyJessy said:

herbancowboy said:
What makes Nader unelectable? Could it be the stranglehold on American politics by the "two" parties and corporate media?



Duverger's law



Wow. I learned something today. Thanks!



Yay!!! Knowledge is good tongue

Formus

Formus

Milwaukee, WI
May 2007

JUL 16, 2007 06:25 PM

joker_c said:
Hmmm, I am going to suggest it.

If we want to give everyone airtime, we need a new television show. American "President", kinda like "Idol" only important.



This, actually, carried out correctly, could be a spectacular idea. Glamorizing our political officials is really what we need, especially since more people vote for American Idol than for President. And really, who's more an American Idol than those who shape the country?

Another idea would be to have a series of debates, almost like a TV series, put on throughout the spring or summer, in which each week, two or three candidates debate issues for a good hour, hour and a half before three more take the podiums the next week, for a good eight or so weeks, maybe more. The more recognizable candidates could be spattered about throughout those less so, so that it doesnt seem like they're given more credence than others. This could be on prime time, on a major network, with heavy advertising, and maybe each week an unofficial cell phone poll could be conducted for favorites, who won the debate, etc.

American culture has spiraled down into a completely media-based society, where advertising, ratings, and money alone drive what people are interested in. People watch "America's Got Talent" because commercials tell them to watch it. Same with drivel like "Dancing With The Washed Up Celebrities No One Cares About Anymore." Commercials don't tell people to get politically active. Debates have no real place in this culture, and thus politics are becoming increasingly less important to young (white) people in the United States because candidates just aren't marketable to youth as they are. The way to save the American democratic system is to use it to both take part in and undermine this new cultural structure. Hell, we could get Paris Hilton to be the host. Who doesn't like Paris Hilton? Eh? I mean, uh, Izzy? Who doesn't like her? /tugs collar

geasavenger

geasavenger

West Bend, WI
May 2005

JUL 16, 2007 06:31 PM

NickFaust said:

FearTheReaper said:
Many Democrats like to blame Nader for Bush's victory in 2000, completely ignoring Gore's inept campaign and his total inability to act like human.



Okay, Nader being a complete putz aside, in the name of hisotical accuracy, can we please make note of the fact that Gore won the popular vote by about 1/2 million votes and lost the election because of 5 votes on the Supreme Court?

Nader is not responsible for Bush's taking of the 2000 election. George H. W. Bush is.



I would also like to point out that even if every one who Nader had voted for Gore, it would have not changed the electoral vote in ANY state...and like NickFaust pointed out Gore won the popular vote.


emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

JUL 16, 2007 06:49 PM

Wrong, again, 21,000 people voted for Nader in New Hampshire and Gore lost by 7,000 votes.

guerillasphere

guerillasphere

San Francisco, CA
March 2006

JUL 16, 2007 06:49 PM

FearTheReaper said:
People looking for a president who reminds them of a cranky, old man from a Scooby Doo cartoon may be in luck because Ralph Nader is considering a run for our nation's highest office.



Nader (or any other candidate) could never foil the plot of these "mettling kids."

JuniorBarnes

JuniorBarnes

Forest Grove, OR
April 2007

JUL 16, 2007 07:01 PM

"If voting could actually change something, it would be illegal."

Get out there, do your part, and hide in those booths! Feel the unbridled power surge through you as you dump your decision-making ability and dignity into the hands of someone you've never met, who doesn't give a hog's shit about you! OOO, it feels so GOOD! What a DIFFERENCE you're making! Voting is *snicker* POWER!

</sarcasm>

testykitten

testykitten

Andorra
February 2005

JUL 16, 2007 07:13 PM

Rafi said:

abracadabra said:
To put it simply , the two party system is set up to ensure that the puppet on the left or the right gets into office . These puppets are sponsored by corporations that want to make money . These groups do not want to save the environment , they want to make money . Money is not going to make the world a better place to live . If you think that these corporations are going to serve your interests (health care , increasing teacher's salaries , eradicating poverty , a better quality of life for all etc.) then you are delusional . Introducing third party candidates into public debate allows for those with alternative ideas to enhance our world . Obviously , the system is set up so that those ideas do not reach the public . Hence , we are left with a corrupt political system .



I'm sorry, but I can't believe people are still pulling out this talking point after six years of Bushco. I admit it, I was one of the biggest Naderites in 2000 because I fell for his sales pitch that "Bush = Gore", that there's no difference between "Republicats and Democrans."

It was an enormously idiotic mistake on my part, a fact which the last term and a half of this administration has made all but indisputable. I'm not saying I didn't and don't still have problems with Gore, or Obama, or Edwards, but is there ANYONE who still believes that if Gore had been elected we would be four years deep in Iraq and suffering unprecedented assaults on civil liberties right now? None of the Democratic candidates are perfect, but that doesn't mean they aren't a damn sight better than the alternative right now, in a much more significant and nuanced manner than the old "they're just the lesser of two evils!" canard would like you to believe.

I can acknowledge the huge error in judgement I made about there being no difference between Bush & Gore; that Nader himself still can't is a big part of the problem.



don't beat yourself up, man. i was at the 2000 democratic national convention protest, i went to the nader speech in long beach, and i voted nader with pride. 7 years later i respect my decision at the time, but am despondant at the way things have turned.

thunderbunny

thunderbunny

USA
OLD SKOOL

JUL 16, 2007 07:54 PM

yourfashionwar said:
for the record i think the electoral college is a piece of shit.



To give the EC its due, can you imagine the mindbending clusterfuck that would be a close election on a national election? Any math geek will tell you, big numbers get very, very fuzzy. Elections--even honest ones, are pretty messy things up close.

Plus, then I wouldn't get to circle "Electrical College" at least twice per semester.

skeptik

skeptik

New Orleans, LA
February 2004

JUL 16, 2007 09:22 PM

Personally, I think the Electoral College could work just fine if the way they assigned votes from a state was just (at least sort-of) proportional. Rather than winner-take-all.

The number of Electors for a given state is the number of Representatives plus the number of Senators. Instead of assigning those Electors as a lump to the state, have them cast their electoral votes according to the way the corresponding districts went, with the extra two going the way the state went as a whole. If a third-party candidate won a few districts, he (or she) would get a few electoral votes - rather than needing to win a whole state to get any.

As it is, you can lose a majority of a state's popular vote, while winning a majority of districts. And thereby winning all of the state's Electoral votes. While virtually every stage of the electoral process in the U.S. is plurality-driven, the Electoral College assigns a majority - an artificial majority.

An (overly-simplified) illustration follows:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

* Numbers not actual *

State A population = 1,000,000 = 10 Reps + 2 Sens. = 12 EC votes
State B population = 1,500,000 = 15 Reps + 2 Sens. = 17 EC votes
Candidate X is popular in urban areas, Candidate Y is popular in rural areas.
X gets 600,000 votes in state A with large margins in the cities, but only takes 4 districts - losing narrowly in the 6 rural districts to Y. Y wins state A, 6 districts to 4 - gets 12 EC votes.
X gets 800,000 votes in state B, again taking the cities, again losing the countryside to Y. And losing the state 7 districts to 8. Y wins state B, 8-7, gets 17 EC votes.

In this scenario, X won the popular vote in these two states by a combined margin of 300,000 votes (12%) but lost 29-0 in Electoral College votes.

In my proposed revised scenario, X would get from state A - 6 EC votes (4 districts + 2 for the state popular total), and from state B - 9 EC votes (7 districts + 2 for the popular total). Y would get 6 from state A and 8 from state B. X wins 15 to 14. Still much closer than the popular vote margin, but also still a majority.

A much better balance between a straight popular vote (which would unduly favor densely populated urban states) and the current EC system (which unduly favors sparsely populated rural states). It would also mean that presidential elections couldn't be called so early, as every state has districts that could go either way - or even to someone else.


And Nader (or Kucinich, or Paul) could still take some votes, without fucking up the outcome as a whole so much.


Whaddaya think?

malkav11

malkav11

Saint Paul, MN
July 2003

JUL 16, 2007 09:42 PM

skeptik said:
Personally, I think the Electoral College could work just fine if the way they assigned votes from a state was just (at least sort-of) proportional. Rather than winner-take-all.

The number of Electors for a given state is the number of Representatives plus the number of Senators. Instead of assigning those Electors as a lump to the state, have them cast their electoral votes according to the way the corresponding districts went, with the extra two going the way the state went as a whole. If a third-party candidate won a few districts, he (or she) would get a few electoral votes - rather than needing to win a whole state to get any.

As it is, you can lose a majority of a state's popular vote, while winning a majority of districts. And thereby winning all of the state's Electoral votes. While virtually every stage of the electoral process in the U.S. is plurality-driven, the Electoral College assigns a majority - an artificial majority.

An (overly-simplified) illustration follows:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

* Numbers not actual *

State A population = 1,000,000 = 10 Reps + 2 Sens. = 12 EC votes
State B population = 1,500,000 = 15 Reps + 2 Sens. = 17 EC votes
Candidate X is popular in urban areas, Candidate Y is popular in rural areas.
X gets 600,000 votes in state A with large margins in the cities, but only takes 4 districts - losing narrowly in the 6 rural districts to Y. Y wins state A, 6 districts to 4 - gets 12 EC votes.
X gets 800,000 votes in state B, again taking the cities, again losing the countryside to Y. And losing the state 7 districts to 8. Y wins state B, 8-7, gets 17 EC votes.

In this scenario, X won the popular vote in these two states by a combined margin of 300,000 votes (12%) but lost 29-0 in Electoral College votes.

In my proposed revised scenario, X would get from state A - 6 EC votes (4 districts + 2 for the state popular total), and from state B - 9 EC votes (7 districts + 2 for the popular total). Y would get 6 from state A and 8 from state B. X wins 15 to 14. Still much closer than the popular vote margin, but also still a majority.

A much better balance between a straight popular vote (which would unduly favor densely populated urban states) and the current EC system (which unduly favors sparsely populated rural states). It would also mean that presidential elections couldn't be called so early, as every state has districts that could go either way - or even to someone else.


And Nader (or Kucinich, or Paul) could still take some votes, without fucking up the outcome as a whole so much.


Whaddaya think?



I think it makes too much sense to be implemented.

MessyJessy

MessyJessy

Fort Myers, FL
August 2005

JUL 16, 2007 10:10 PM

malkav11 said:

skeptik said:
Personally, I think the Electoral College could work just fine if the way they assigned votes from a state was just (at least sort-of) proportional. Rather than winner-take-all.

The number of Electors for a given state is the number of Representatives plus the number of Senators. Instead of assigning those Electors as a lump to the state, have them cast their electoral votes according to the way the corresponding districts went, with the extra two going the way the state went as a whole. If a third-party candidate won a few districts, he (or she) would get a few electoral votes - rather than needing to win a whole state to get any.

As it is, you can lose a majority of a state's popular vote, while winning a majority of districts. And thereby winning all of the state's Electoral votes. While virtually every stage of the electoral process in the U.S. is plurality-driven, the Electoral College assigns a majority - an artificial majority.

An (overly-simplified) illustration follows:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

* Numbers not actual *

State A population = 1,000,000 = 10 Reps + 2 Sens. = 12 EC votes
State B population = 1,500,000 = 15 Reps + 2 Sens. = 17 EC votes
Candidate X is popular in urban areas, Candidate Y is popular in rural areas.
X gets 600,000 votes in state A with large margins in the cities, but only takes 4 districts - losing narrowly in the 6 rural districts to Y. Y wins state A, 6 districts to 4 - gets 12 EC votes.
X gets 800,000 votes in state B, again taking the cities, again losing the countryside to Y. And losing the state 7 districts to 8. Y wins state B, 8-7, gets 17 EC votes.

In this scenario, X won the popular vote in these two states by a combined margin of 300,000 votes (12%) but lost 29-0 in Electoral College votes.

In my proposed revised scenario, X would get from state A - 6 EC votes (4 districts + 2 for the state popular total), and from state B - 9 EC votes (7 districts + 2 for the popular total). Y would get 6 from state A and 8 from state B. X wins 15 to 14. Still much closer than the popular vote margin, but also still a majority.

A much better balance between a straight popular vote (which would unduly favor densely populated urban states) and the current EC system (which unduly favors sparsely populated rural states). It would also mean that presidential elections couldn't be called so early, as every state has districts that could go either way - or even to someone else.


And Nader (or Kucinich, or Paul) could still take some votes, without fucking up the outcome as a whole so much.


Whaddaya think?



I think it makes too much sense to be implemented.



lol +1

FriedTurkey

FriedTurkey

Grapevine, TX
January 2006

JUL 16, 2007 11:10 PM

Does the old argument that the two parties are the same still valid in 2007? Does anybody believe we would be in Iraq if Gore won? I only got 50 more years max on Earth and I don't see the system changing before I die. Time to make do with the lesser of the evils party. Democrats don't listen to the far left because they know they will probably ditch them for a Nader anyway. I have given up on abandoning the Democratic Party and am now deciding to back it.

ASSH0LE

ASSH0LE

Las Vegas, NV
June 2003

JUL 17, 2007 12:20 AM

Omega_Blue said:
Ralph Nader and other such 3rd party candidates, however appealing, have no chance of winning an election...the only thing that they can do is take a small percentage of votes from either the Democrats or the Republicans, which could sway an election if it is quite close...



I think I've posted it here about a dozen times, but the only impact a third party candidate has is to draw votes away from whichever of the two parties is closest to his beliefs.

Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose candidacy drew off enough Republican votes to allow for the first Dixiecrat President since the post-bellum days. And race relations suffered for it.

Hard to say whether Perot being absent from the 1992 campaign could have won it for Bush I. Perot being on the ballot certainly didn't hurt Clinton's chances. Likewise with John Anderson in 1980 (though he was kind of Reagan-lite-and-still-not-Carter).

dru138

dru138

San Jose, CA
September 2004

JUL 17, 2007 12:21 AM

I really don't think Bush vs. Gore is a realistic example of why the two parties aren't the same; Bush is an exception (exceptionally evil in my opinion). If another candidate for the Repubs was in office it would be much harder to say they are vastly different.
(I'm not ignoring the fact that Bush didn't act alone).
I feel that the two parties only seem so polar to each other in this case because the current administration has been exceptionally fucked in ways that make every other party look very much more sane. (Though under the microscope this is arguable because of all the weak politicians pandering to the political winds for whatever their personal reasons).

My opinion overall is that the Rs and Ds aren't very different when you step back and look. They are both pretty close to center compared to the lesser known candidates who stand for any kind of real change in the way we live and think in society.

dru138

dru138

San Jose, CA
September 2004

JUL 17, 2007 12:26 AM

I'm still tossed-up on whether voting for a third party truly hurts things in the long run.
I mean if you don't vote for the party that really stands for what you want to see accomplished, how can you expect to ever see it happen? How can I expect to ever see a Green pres if I don't vote for him myself? Isn't this the way its supposed to work in theory?
It may take more than just staunchly voting for your party, but to not do so out of fear of "spoiling" seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy!

RudieCantFail

RudieCantFail

Baton Rouge, LA
January 2006

JUL 17, 2007 12:48 AM

I love Ralph Nader threads almost as much as I love Ron Paul threads.



That is all.

_kungfoo_

_kungfoo_

Los Angeles, CA
April 2005

JUL 17, 2007 12:57 AM

RudieCantFail said:
I love Ralph Nader threads almost as much as I love Ron Paul threads.



Maybe they should mate.

RudieCantFail

RudieCantFail

Baton Rouge, LA
January 2006

JUL 17, 2007 01:14 AM

KUNGFOO said:

RudieCantFail said:
I love Ralph Nader threads almost as much as I love Ron Paul threads.



Maybe they should mate.



iKitten

iKitten

Woodstock, GA
May 2007

JUL 17, 2007 01:17 AM

Some day I want to run for office under the slogan "Vote for me. You could do a lot worse."

gfvella

gfvella

Australia
November 2004

JUL 17, 2007 02:29 AM

herbancowboy said:
The corporate media is decidedly "centrist," which really means "pro-big business" and neocolonial. Let's not talk about anything unpleasant. They media anoint a handful of "safe" candidates and tell the voters what the voters should consider important. And then nobody votes.



Neocolonial? Pro-business i get, but neocolonial? Is the American Corporate Media pushing to overturn that awful bolshie revolution you lot had? Let's hear it for Elizabeth the Second, Queen of the 52 American Colonies!

gfvella

gfvella

Australia
November 2004

JUL 17, 2007 02:37 AM

Tech29 said:
I'm not an American but if Ralph nader was in politics down here in Australia he probably would have been Prime Minister for the last 10 years tongue



Oh yeah, he and Johny the Midget Stormtrooper would have gotten on like a house on fire.

RudieCantFail

RudieCantFail

Baton Rouge, LA
January 2006

JUL 17, 2007 02:41 AM

gfvella said:

herbancowboy said:
The corporate media is decidedly "centrist," which really means "pro-big business" and neocolonial. Let's not talk about anything unpleasant. They media anoint a handful of "safe" candidates and tell the voters what the voters should consider important. And then nobody votes.



Neocolonial? Pro-business i get, but neocolonial? Is the American Corporate Media pushing to overturn that awful bolshie revolution you lot had? Let's hear it for Elizabeth the Second, Queen of the 52 American Colonies!



Don't make us 'liberate' you. tongue

gfvella

gfvella

Australia
November 2004

JUL 17, 2007 02:44 AM

abracadabra said:
To put it simply , the two party system is set up to ensure that the puppet on the left or the right gets into office . These puppets are sponsored by corporations that want to make money .



Right on Comrade! The People (pls remember to always capitalise the People, they are important and are as one) can't be trusted to make important decisions and smell the bullshit, especially in the USA where most of them don't even vote. A communist state where the caring and honest cadres of the Party (also always capitalised to make it clear that there is only one Party) make all the decisions for the People is necessary.

Of course the Party's cadres also run everything so we can shoot all those nasty efficient capitalists who have made the west so wealthy and degenerate. When the cadres run the USA I can guarantee to you that they will not be polluting the environment to make people rich and happy, they will only be polluting it after heartfelt discussions about the core requirements of the People and the Party and with many tears for all the dead trees and furry creatures.

On and don't worry about people like Uncognitive. The Party has ways of dealing with dangerous believers in democracy.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next