US Elections 2008

[Seditary]

Originally Posted by Sorrow-K

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.

Actually, it is also an offence if you don't enrol to vote within 21 days of becoming eligible to vote (turning 18). And also, if you don't vote and then don't pay the fine, you can even be thrown in prison for a while.

In some states local council elections aren't compulsory, but state and federal ones are compulsory nationwide.

There is of course, legitimate reasons people don't vote in our system such as:
1. Persons of unsound mind
2. Serving a three or more year prison sentence
3. Convicted of treason or treachery
4. Religious duty
among a few others.

We also get around the problems of not being able to attend a polling place on election day by allowing postal votes, pre-poll votes, provisional votes and absent votes. There are also, of course, restrictions on even being able to make these kinds of votes so not everyone can just sit around at home and mail in a form.

[nanafan]

sometimes i don't vote when i don't know what i am voting on, i'd rather not vote than vote and not know what i am voting on

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by nanafan

sometimes i don't vote when i don't know what i am voting on, i'd rather not vote than vote and not know what i am voting on

This is California's biggest problem in the U.S. The state is broke because we refuse to pass legislation that would affect things such as unions like the teacher's union even though they are really needed. California allows its voters to vote on every proposition unlike many other states who just elect legislators who pass laws by themselves. Someone just puts up a "poor me" teacher commercial and everybody goes and does whatever the commercials tell them to do without really learning anything. Too much democracy unfortunately works counter productively (Just my opinion, I can't back it up).

I like the whole idea of this voting day where people get off form work and school though. Maybe people would actually take the day and learn about what and who they are voting for.

Mandatory voting however does not sound like a good idea. I can just imagine all the people who can't think for themselves following whatever their parent's and friends do. Having it so people have a choice to vote I think limits the amount of uneducated votes (Ignorance truly is Democracy's enemy like Ledgem says).

On the topic of WV... The media has got to stop this with the Clinton hyping. It's done! Over! Get on with it!

[Seditary]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Mandatory voting however does not sound like a good idea. I can just imagine all the people who can't think for themselves following whatever their parent's and friends do. Having it so people have a choice to vote I think limits the amount of uneducated votes (Ignorance truly is Democracy's enemy like Ledgem says).

I'm really kinda taking this off the topic, so this'll do me for the thread, but this column talks about my views on mandatory and voluntary voting pretty well.

And this is also a good read.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

On the topic of WV... The media has got to stop this with the Clinton hyping. It's done! Over! Get on with it!

To the bitter end, Clinton! Obama must never be president, for the sake of the United States!

[Vexx]

The exit polls certainly didn't put W.Virginia under the best lights. Almost 20% of registered Democrat voters there apparently voted against Obama simply because he isn't "white" (whatever that designation actually means).

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Vexx

The exit polls certainly didn't put W.Virginia under the best lights. Almost 20% of registered Democrat voters there apparently voted against Obama simply because he isn't "white" (whatever that designation actually means).

Possibily an indicator of Obama's chances.

[yezhanquan]

I'll just say that whoever is elected will have to face the lobbyists. Now, I know this has been discussed before. But, some (if not most) lobbyists have agendas which are not in the interest of the US. They look out for themselves or the organisations they represent. Hence, the deadlock in Congress and what not.

Democracy without liberty: thanks for the lesson.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

Possibily an indicator of Obama's chances.

I think the large corporation support for Clinton is more of a problem for Obama than race. They control the bulk of the media which is 90% of the "average voter's" data input. I feel like both candidates are actually very similar -- but Clinton is more entrenched with interests that don't necessarily have the Public Good in mind.
West Virginia is a very small state electorally and, frankly, has a lot of people that meet the criteria described in Blazing Saddles so aptly by The Waco Kid. Apologies to the people with a clue who live there.

I'll still vote for an ashtray if they elect it at the Democratic Convention because that's just my little message to the faux-Republicans for the last eight years.

[yezhanquan]

Bush had the vision, but he didn't have the plans to realise them. Should the next president have plans, but no grand vision?

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

Bush had the vision, but he didn't have the plans to realise them. Should the next president have plans, but no grand vision?

If what you say about Bush is true, then Obama would be another Bush.

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

If what you say about Bush is true, then Obama would be another Bush.

Sadly, I may have to agree. I disliked Bush not for what he envisioned, but for his failure to translate that vision into reality. I do believe that he's a simple man at heart, an alcoholic in his youth, but kicked the habit with "divine" help. He gave me the impression that he never really sat down to put his vision into "doable" action. Also, his team couldn't help him with this nuts & bolts aspect.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

If what you say about Bush is true, then Obama would be another Bush.

Some of us worry that all three main candidates; each could potentially be another Bush. Our government is so seriously corroded by corporate interests that only have the profits of the financial quarter in mind, we're actually voting for which corporate "gang" gets the next swag from the pubic till.

I take a very different view of Bush. I think he and his "gang" accomplished *exactly* what they set out to do. They even took the mainstream Republicans for a ride off of a short pier, dangling hot button moron issues to keep them following.
1) Corrode the government until it was unable to regulate or promote the public good.
2) Loot the Treasury with no-bid contracts handed out to all their buddies.
3) Increase instability and chaos to the energy market - this drives the prices up and has produced the biggest profits of any set of businesses in all of written history.

Did no one see anything odd about Bush&Cheney visiting the Saudi royalty a few months ago to "ask them to increase production to lower prices"? These people are all longtime friends, allies, and partners - members of the same production stream. That was just showtime bullshit.
Most analysts figure American prices for gas to hit $4/gal by Memorial Day. $5/gal by Labor Day isn't unrealistic. Unlike the rest of the world, not a lot of that is in "public good taxes". Energy company profits are completely off the scale. R&D and maintenance is at a long-time low.

[yezhanquan]

Congress has become too transparent, open to influence from anyone who's willing to use money to make sure that their agenda gets onto the table.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

Bush had the vision, but he didn't have the plans to realise them. Should the next president have plans, but no grand vision?

The problem of the Bush government really wasn't Bush's vision (he ran on a vague, family-friendly "compassionate conservative" slogan after all. Amusingly enough, David Cameron of the UK is calling himself the same thing; oh the irony for the new "Tony Blair of the Tories"). The problem was and is having incompetent neoconservative ideologues in key positions. These guys are like Thatcher-lite: they want things to go their way, and ready to put severe pressure on everybody else to get them, and the result wasn't pretty for things like democracy and rights, or the handling of the Iraqi conflicts. The Iron Lady paid her price in her day, and Bush is paying his right now for allowing them so much free reign.

Of course, his other problem was extreme partisanship and a distinct lack of political skills to handle it smoothly.

At least I can be somewhat sure that a new Democratic [Party] President will not lose his or her mind and invite goddamn neocons into the cabinet.



Vexx/yezhanguan: A question: If you are President (), how would you deal with corporate influences in the government? I'd like to say my piece but I think a clean slate will better allow me to read your opinions. It is after all a very interesting and very real issue, though not always one-sided as such.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Seditary

I'm really kinda taking this off the topic, so this'll do me for the thread, but this column talks about my views on mandatory and voluntary voting pretty well.

I find the idea of "mandatory consent" to be somewhat oxymoronic, but I guess the "NCA" option makes it palatable, if barely.

[yezhanquan]

Ah, Margaret. The Baroness is in poor health, last time I heard. (At 82, I'm not surprised. The strokes took quite a bit out of her.)

Anyway, just how true is the perception that Americans are knee/waist-deep in debt, be it from mortgages or credit cards?

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

Anyway, just how true is the perception that Americans are knee/waist-deep in debt, be it from mortgages or credit cards?

If I remember correctly....

"Mortgaging the future for today."

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

Anyway, just how true is the perception that Americans are knee/waist-deep in debt, be it from mortgages or credit cards?

Serious enough to provoke a credit crunch and a potential recession. Our consumer culture created a very active and vibrant, well, consumer economy; but it has many weaknesses and this is clearly a big one.

In other news, Wall Street celebrates the Federal Bank's massive intervention in the market a few weeks ago. I just love the ironies in the looks of my free-market microeconomics college professors.

Anyway, I'm kind of interested in your answer to my question above on the corporate issues.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

In other news, Wall Street celebrates the Federal Bank's massive intervention in the market a few weeks ago. I just love the ironies in the looks of my free-market microeconomics college professors.

1. Microeconomics runs on slightly different rules from macroeconomics.


2. FB intervened only in the financial sector.