US Elections 2008

[Ledgem]

I've seen ridiculous comments from fans of either politician. It makes me sad that these people are able to vote, but that's what having a fair (even if in name only) system is about. What I'd prefer is this: whoever doesn't win the Democratic nomination should run as a third-party candidate. Both Clinton and Obama have built up a massive following, and it might inspire people to reconsider whether voting for either the Republicans or the Democrats is truly necessary. I'm not sure if they'd be allowed to do that, though.

[KholdStare]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I've seen ridiculous comments from fans of either politician. It makes me sad that these people are able to vote, but that's what having a fair (even if in name only) system is about. What I'd prefer is this: whoever doesn't win the Democratic nomination should run as a third-party candidate. Both Clinton and Obama have built up a massive following, and it might inspire people to reconsider whether voting for either the Republicans or the Democrats is truly necessary. I'm not sure if they'd be allowed to do that, though.

But the thing is this will ensure that McCain will win. Remember the election of 1912 when Roosevelt pulled out after loosing the nomination? Some even said that Wilson probably wouldn't have won if Roosevelt didn't run.

EDIT: I'm actually hoping that whoever loses the democratic nomination will fully support the other so we don't get people who won't vote at all. The problem isn't really people voting for McCain instead, but it's people who are going to vote for Clinton or Obama if and only if s/he is on the presidential ballot.

[Sokar]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I've seen ridiculous comments from fans of either politician. It makes me sad that these people are able to vote, but that's what having a fair (even if in name only) system is about. What I'd prefer is this: whoever doesn't win the Democratic nomination should run as a third-party candidate. Both Clinton and Obama have built up a massive following, and it might inspire people to reconsider whether voting for either the Republicans or the Democrats is truly necessary. I'm not sure if they'd be allowed to do that, though.

And it makes me sad you make a comment like that. Everyone has a right to vote, it doesn't matter what I think of their views, whether they are racist, uneducated, misinformed, whatever. At the end of the day if they are a citizen of the United States they have a right to vote.

[Terrestrial Dream]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I've seen ridiculous comments from fans of either politician. It makes me sad that these people are able to vote, but that's what having a fair (even if in name only) system is about. What I'd prefer is this: whoever doesn't win the Democratic nomination should run as a third-party candidate. Both Clinton and Obama have built up a massive following, and it might inspire people to reconsider whether voting for either the Republicans or the Democrats is truly necessary. I'm not sure if they'd be allowed to do that, though.

I would like a third party to appear but not now because I just think that another Republican winning is bad for Untied States in general and since the majority of congress currently being Democrat I think nothing will get done. I wonder will Michael Bloomberg will run in 2012? He seems to have enough support and most importantly money to run a presidential race.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Terrestrial Dream

I would like a third party to appear but not now because I just think that another Republican winning is bad for Untied States in general and since the majority of congress currently being Democrat I think nothing will get done. I wonder will Michael Bloomberg will run in 2012? He seems to have enough support and most importantly money to run a presidential race.

Clinton got a lot done with a republican congress. A lot more then he did with democratic congress. You can debate whether clinton should have pass those bills but fact is, things did get done. It all depends on whether each side is willing to compromise.

Obama keep talking about change and he might even be sincere about it But if anyone thinks just because he has a democratic congress means he can make his changes then they are totally naive.

All you have to do is look at Bill Clinton's first 2 year. Democratic President, Democratic Congress and nothing got done as congress fought Clinton on almost every issue.

Obama supporters are day dreaming if they think Obama will get a free ride in Congress.

[Terrestrial Dream]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

Clinton got a lot done with a republican congress. A lot more then he did with democratic congress. You can debate whether clinton should have pass those bills but fact is, things did get done. It all depends on whether each side is willing to compromise.

Obama keep talking about change and he might even be sincere about it But if anyone thinks just because he has a democratic congress means he can make his changes then they are totally naive.

All you have to do is look at Bill Clinton's first 2 year. Democratic President, Democratic Congress and nothing got done as congress fought Clinton on almost every issue.

Obama supporters are day dreaming if they think Obama will get a free ride in Congress.

Still congress being majority Democrat will have better chance of getting something done. I don't know much about during Clinton era but in the 60's if majority of congress were Republican I think that all those civil rights bill would not have been passed. We could only assume for now but I still think that if a Democrat president is elected when majority of congress is Democrat more legislation will get done. Though I agree with you that I don't think Obama will have easy time with congress.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Terrestrial Dream

Still congress being majority Democrat will have better chance of getting something done. I don't know much about during Clinton era but in the 60's if majority of congress were Republican I think that all those civil rights bill would not have been passed. We could only assume for now but I still think that if a Democrat president is elected when majority of congress is Democrat more legislation will get done. Though I agree with you that I don't think Obama will have easy time with congress.

You may want to do some research and take a look at the history of the proposals and voting records of the 1960 Civl Rights acts, and any similar acts before. I think you'll find the record of history surprising, and quite detrimental to the typical stereotypes of the parties.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

You may want to do some research and take a look at the history of the proposals and voting records of the 1960 Civl Rights acts, and any similar acts before. I think you'll find the record of history surprising, and quite detrimental to the typical stereotypes of the parties.

I agree, the Democrates were in the Majority of the Congress in the 60s but it was only with the Republicans that the Civil Rights bills were pass. Many of the Southern Democrates voted against the Civil Rights Act and later switch parties to Republican over the Civil Rights act.

Originally Posted by Terrestrial Dream

Still congress being majority Democrat will have better chance of getting something done. I don't know much about during Clinton era but in the 60's if majority of congress were Republican I think that all those civil rights bill would not have been passed. We could only assume for now but I still think that if a Democrat president is elected when majority of congress is Democrat more legislation will get done. Though I agree with you that I don't think Obama will have easy time with congress.

Democrates hasn't always been about Civil Rights and Progressive agendas and the Republican wasn't always the party of the Rich and powerful. I think you might want to take back that sentence and do some more research on the subject.

[Terrestrial Dream]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

You may want to do some research and take a look at the history of the proposals and voting records of the 1960 Civl Rights acts, and any similar acts before. I think you'll find the record of history surprising, and quite detrimental to the typical stereotypes of the parties.

Right I forgot about that Democrat in the 60's were mostly against the civil rights act as they were supported by majority of the south, though from what I remember the Democrat party began to change to party of today in the 60's. Crap that just killed my argument . Instead of civil rights I should have talked about Great Society programs.

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

I agree, the Democrates were in the Majority of the Congress in the 60s but it was only with the Republicans that the Civil Rights bills were pass. Many of the Southern Democrates voted against the Civil Rights Act and later switch parties to Republican over the Civil Rights act.



Democrates hasn't always been about Civil Rights and Progressive agendas and the Republican wasn't always the party of the Rich and powerful. I think you might want to take back that sentence and do some more research on the subject.

I know my mistake I should have talked about Great Society instead of Civil Rights, sorry about that.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Terrestrial Dream

I would like a third party to appear but not now because I just think that another Republican winning is bad for Untied States in general and since the majority of congress currently being Democrat I think nothing will get done. I wonder will Michael Bloomberg will run in 2012? He seems to have enough support and most importantly money to run a presidential race.

There is also Ralph Nader and tons of third parties, but with less than 5% national support among all of the 3rd parties, it is the equivalent of what they said on the Simpsons:

Man: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Sokar

And it makes me sad you make a comment like that. Everyone has a right to vote, it doesn't matter what I think of their views, whether they are racist, uneducated, misinformed, whatever. At the end of the day if they are a citizen of the United States they have a right to vote.

I take offense to that. I wasn't suggesting that these people don't have a right to vote, I stated that I'm saddened by the fact that some people who approach this as though it were rooting for a sports team are voting. Let me state why, because this does impact you and me since we live in this society.

Under the ideals of the system we'd all be examining each candidate and their stances on the issues, and we'd be thinking critically about how well they'd lead and if their positions on the matters are sound or not. The people I mentioned show no signs of that sort of reasoning at all. If Clinton doesn't get the nomation then we'll vote for McCain, just because McCain isn't Obama and Obama and Clinton are currently competing? What the hell sort of reasoning is that? I'm sorry, but that's terrible. I don't care whether you're an American citizen or not, that's a ridiculous position to take. That sort of garbage is harmful to our society. I understand that in order for the ideals of our society to work everyone has the right to vote, and I didn't suggest otherwise. I think it's completely justified to call that sort of garbage attitude for what it is, though.

The entire purpose of having representation through elections is for the people to choose the direction that the society will go in. Ideally this means that everyone would be thinking about what's good for them/society and candidates would be approached as such. If people are making massively misinformed decisions or if they become zealots and stop caring about the bottom line and more on a candidate's name, then the system is in big trouble. Elections are useless at that point as they no longer guarantee the health of society, just that the most manipulative candidate will be employed. If you think I'm wrong for being upset at the notion that my society would operate that way, then we have nothing to discuss beyond stating that we disagree with each other.

[Aya Reiko]

On toward the GE.

That said...

[Ermes Marana]

Obama seems like too much of an idealist, but it is pretty clear Clinton is out of it now.

Obama is still a MUCH better choice than McCain. McCain won't be much different than the last 8 years, unless he goes senile and starts randomly bombing Muslim countries, but hopefully that won't happen.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

If Clinton doesn't get the nomation then we'll vote for McCain, just because McCain isn't Obama and Obama and Clinton are currently competing? What the hell sort of reasoning is that? I'm sorry, but that's terrible. I don't care whether you're an American citizen or not, that's a ridiculous position to take. That sort of garbage is harmful to our society. I understand that in order for the ideals of our society to work everyone has the right to vote, and I didn't suggest otherwise. I think it's completely justified to call that sort of garbage attitude for what it is, though.

What if we genuinely dislike Obama in a thoughtful way ?

But really, if you don't like it, then you essentially don't like the idea of democracy. Most people are not going to research politics and vote man, you and I and others on this thread are within a minority of people who follow politics. Presidential races are won on stupid stuff like if the guy is religious or not, his race, his personality, and general policies like pro life or pro choice. People are not going to really research anything about how so-and-so is going to cut gas prices, or how this guy plans to attack the war in Iraq (all they would understand is "continue" or "end" the war without much thought or understanding of our situation in there). America's bane is the idea that Oprah can elect our nominees for political parties because she "just likes him (Oh apparently not because he is black, she has no problem with Hilary but just likes Obama, give me a break!)

Representation of the people is pretty wishful thinking in my opinion. There is really too many people living today for this to be possible. There is just about always an opposing force to any decision you make, therefor groups of people are always left out. Democracy is where the minorities get overrun by the majorities. Also like 8/10 people know crap about politics or are hardly interested, how the hell do these political parties represent us? People have no free will and they really have very little control of their lives in general. You cannot go against the current. This is why anarchists exist in our world, since they hate this fact, but in my view we need government because man will naturally degenerate into animals without a higher force keeping them in check. Like Rousseau says in the Social Contract, we the people have a contract with our government that in return for their protection we give up our rights to them. We sacrifice our personal interests in order to stay alive. My conclusion? Life sucks.

Sorry for going a little OT here...

[WanderingKnight]

Well, what Ledgem has pointed out is the true problem with democracy. I'm not saying it's a bad system, because frankly, it's the best that we've got, but it's been exploited mercilessly thoroughout history. The sad thing is not that idiots without a single drop of critical thinking have a right to vote, the sad thing is that this makes them manipulable idiots without a single drop of critical thinking, and thus they're used as an instrument of power.

I've seen it happen far too often in my own country, and I have no reason to believe it works differently in the US or elsewhere.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

What if we genuinely dislike Obama in a thoughtful way ?

Then that's fine, and while I'd love to hear and discuss the reasoning I also recognize that even two logical and rational individuals will not always agree. I have no problems with that.

But really, if you don't like it, then you essentially don't like the idea of democracy.
...
Democracy is where the minorities get overrun by the majorities. Also like 8/10 people know crap about politics or are hardly interested, how the hell do these political parties represent us?

I like the idea of democracy just fine. But ignorance bothers me, and the ignorance is what is harmful to the democratic system. Note that ignorance isn't limited to politics. I'd also request that nobody get cute with me and accuse me of calling anyone with a disagreeing view ignorant - I think we all know damn well what I'm talking about.

Democracy is rule by the people. The minorities do not always have to be overrun by the majority, although in the American system this is how it plays out. For reference, contrast it with the European system, where a party receives a number of government seats (power/representation) based on the number of votes that they received. In that sense, even though minority parties/candidates may only hold minority power in government, that voice exists within the government. Under our system, the winner takes all - even if they win by 51%, the desires of the 49% are essentially tossed away. I must admit that when I heard of the European system I thought it sounded much more fair, but I'm sure it has its own problems.

The ignorance of the people could theoretically be countered in a number of ways. For example, it often seems like the most politically active people are the zealots, the "political sports fans." These people will vote, without a doubt. On the other hand, people who tend to know a bit more about the situation will not necessarily vote. I didn't vote in the last election because I was busy as hell with my studies and missed the deadline for an absentee ballot (the way you'd vote if you can't physically get to your voting station - and I was out of state). Plenty of others who have knowledge of the system feel that their vote is meaningless - it's one against many, and the ignorant are far louder than any of us. Thus, the voting demographic is always skewed toward the elderly and the politically active. That isn't a true democracy, either.

How can that problem be addressed? From what I hear, Australia has a way to somewhat even that up: mandatory voting. If I've heard right, you'll essentially be fined for not casting a vote. While this may encourage some blind voting, at least the entire population is forced to make a decision and be involved. In my opinion, we should have something similar. I'm not big on trying to guilt-trip people into voting by calling it a civic duty, but I do recognize that in order for the system to work a bit closer to the way it should ideally be working, everyone needs to be involved.

[Ermes Marana]

I always think it is funny when people talk about forced voting.

Currently, voting day in America is a full school/work day and people don't even have time to go vote. I know I personally had classes all day long last time.

Before considering forced voting, we might consider a less extreme idea, like simply giving people the day off to go vote.

[Sorrow-K]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

How can that problem be addressed? From what I hear, Australia has a way to somewhat even that up: mandatory voting. If I've heard right, you'll essentially be fined for not casting a vote. While this may encourage some blind voting, at least the entire population is forced to make a decision and be involved. In my opinion, we should have something similar. I'm not big on trying to guilt-trip people into voting by calling it a civic duty, but I do recognize that in order for the system to work a bit closer to the way it should ideally be working, everyone needs to be involved.

Yes, this is true. Here in Australia, voting is compulsory. If you're enrolled to vote, and you fail to do so, you get fined. The system isn't completely water tight, since you need to be enrolled to vote, and it is your responsibility to enrol yourself, and if you choose not to do so, there's nothing the AEC can do to touch you. But, once you've enrolled, you must vote in all elections, from local council to federal level.

And, yes, I think it's a good system. It isn't a total cure for ignorance, but the very act of turning up to a polling booth encourages people to at least think a bit about their decision, which is something that someone who stays at home on election day is never forced to do. I was always under the impression that the reason why the US didn't have compulsory voting is because the population is so large, that it'd be impractical. But personally I think that's a reason that's open to debate, to say the least.

On topic, I was watching CNN today, and they were reporting that Clinton's beginning to show the first signs that she's about to throw in the towel. The super delegates have just about fallen Obama's way, and we've known for some time that Clinton's pretty much been done and dusted. They speculated that she'll contest West Virginia, where she'll probably expect to win, so she can go out on a high. Certainly, it'll be best for the Democratic campaign for the White House that she does (finally) withdraw, but do people think she'll actually do so?

[WanderingKnight]

How can that problem be addressed? From what I hear, Australia has a way to somewhat even that up: mandatory voting. If I've heard right, you'll essentially be fined for not casting a vote. While this may encourage some blind voting, at least the entire population is forced to make a decision and be involved. In my opinion, we should have something similar. I'm not big on trying to guilt-trip people into voting by calling it a civic duty, but I do recognize that in order for the system to work a bit closer to the way it should ideally be working, everyone needs to be involved.

I have to comment that this has been traditionally the way it's been done here in Argentina, and even though I agree it's better overall, unfortunately it's been exploited far too much by way of frauds and whatnot.

[bayoab]

WV primary is today and is already called for Clinton before voting even ended.

Meanwhile, the Clinton News Network is at it again:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A big victory in West Virginia Tuesday could re-energize Sen. Hillary Clinton's bid for the White House and raise fresh doubts about Sen. Barack Obama's electability in the general election.

Also (same link as above):

"Well, I gotta tell you, according to the Department of Energy, it will help you [save] $70 this summer, and if you're a truck driver or you commute long distances, it'll help you even more."

Which would be not entirely true?

Other fun links:
The Hill asks Senators if they want to be VP:

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)
"No, I’d have Jon Stewart stand in for me. Jon Stewart. That’s my guy."

SNL "satires" Clinton. I say satire because it is a little too close to reality.