|
|
Post by hondobrode on Nov 4, 2014 18:50:43 GMT -5
And on this eve of election day I share my fervent dream If we all vote for fringe party candidates, you will see the politicians from both sides of the fence suddenly begin to work for the electorate in a panic. It will be the end of gridlock. They will work for you instead of themselves. Things will improve by throwing the incumbents out. Even if the replacements are lousy they will be scared of the fickleness of the public and won't act stupid. Voter Fickleness-thats our real power I've been a lifelong Dem but for the first time today voted to re-elect our governor as I think she's done surprisingly well. She was previously more conservative as a Congresswoman, but since becoming governor has moved closer to center. That's upset a lot of people, but not me. I expect her to be re-elected. I did did exactly as you suggested Ish and voted indie where possible, otherwise the rest went Dem, and I voted not to keep anyone in office. |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Nov 4, 2014 18:57:29 GMT -5
And on this eve of election day I share my fervent dream If we all vote for fringe party candidates, you will see the politicians from both sides of the fence suddenly begin to work for the electorate in a panic. It will be the end of gridlock. They will work for you instead of themselves. Things will improve by throwing the incumbents out. Even if the replacements are lousy they will be scared of the fickleness of the public and won't act stupid. Voter Fickleness-thats our real power I've been a lifelong Dem but for the first time today voted to re-elect our governor as I think she's done surprisingly well. She was previously more conservative as a Congresswoman, but since becoming governor has moved closer to center. That's upset a lot of people, but not me. I expect her to be re-elected. I did did exactly as you suggested Ish and voted indie where possible, otherwise the rest went Dem, and I voted not to keep anyone in office. Hondo, all in one post, hits the 1000 mark and a home run in my book. Make incumbants nervous. Don't let them think of the job as something they can use to amass power and wealth for their future. They serve us-not the other way around. Treat them like we remember comics as they used to be-One and Done |
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Nov 4, 2014 19:03:22 GMT -5
I'm tired of my vote being taken for granted and want another option.
I doubt it'll happen in my lifetime, but I'm tired of picking the lesser of two evils.
You're right Ish. If only more people followed their hearts instead of settling.
Let me be clear though : I'm not blaming anyone for voting for the lesser of two evils cause I did for years, and I understand the pragmatism behind it.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Nov 5, 2014 0:34:51 GMT -5
Wouldn't we get the same results no matter how many options we had? All people are not infallible and prone to the seduction of power and other carnal instincts. I can't argue the structure of the political system at length as I am not as knowledgable as some, but wouldn't even a perfectly designed system would still be ran by imperfect people?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2014 1:00:30 GMT -5
Oh, Libertarians would never cozy up to big business. They got our backs. Immune to scandal and greed they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2014 1:07:56 GMT -5
 -M |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2014 1:21:17 GMT -5
My take on political parties in America is this...for the first hundred years of American politics, political parties rose and fell based on how well they addressed the issue Americans felt were important. Their platforms needed to reflects the issues and positions people were concerned about or people looked elsewhere and the party died. Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, Whigs, Progressives, et. al. all scrambled to get and maintain enough support to remain viable. Somewhere along the way, the cart got put before the horse. In the second century of America politics, not only was a two party system entrenched, but the parties comprising that system became entrenched in the Democrats and Republicans. No longer did parties scramble to make their platforms meet the needs and concerns of the electorate, instead they defined what the issues were that people should be concerned about and how people should feel about those issues. They no longer served the needs of the people, but dictated terms to the people to follow. The first century of American politics had its problems for sure, but at least political parties were not guaranteed survival just by being.
My other take is that the office of President takes a lot of cues from the way George Washington did things since he was the first. The one thing he did that has not become precedent and should have been was that he had no political party affiliation while in office. The President should not be beholden to any political party and free to fill the responsibilities of the position regardless of what side of the political divide those actions fall. Of course with our cart before the horse political system, this is impossible. But I still feel that is any president acts based on what is good for his party and not what is good for the country (even once), then he or she has violated their oath of office and should be removed. But that will never ever happen in my lifetime or in the lifetime of this nation under its current Constitution and political framework of the 2 party system. Political parties are a cancer that has infected the political system and won't be going away any time soon.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2014 1:25:54 GMT -5
The second century of American politics is where all that equality came in though. Just saying.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2014 1:36:11 GMT -5
The second century of American politics is where all that equality came in though. Just saying. Which had little to nothing to do with the American political parties until it became a weapon they could bludgeon each other with and use for their own advantage. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2014 4:34:46 GMT -5
So, I'm listening to BBC News this morning, and they're all over Congress going Republican and how "everyone" is disaffected with Obama, and I keep coming back to my default opinion on US Government, which is that it just doesn't seem to work.
I get the idea(l) of the separation of legislature and executive, and in bygone days when politics was maybe more consensus-driven maybe it made more sense, but it seems to me that, in the current state of US politics, where everything is so polarised between the two sides that it's virtually impossible to actually achieve anything - that demographics (and the general unelectability of anyone the Republicans put up) is tending towards a string of Democrat presidents, while the legislature either deadlocks or goes Republican.
My questions then to my esteemed colonial cousins: (1) do you feel the same way - does it seem to you that the whole organisation of government is broken? and (2) does this seem a good or a bad thing - ie do you like the fact the government deadlocks so it doesn't/can't change much?
To be clear - I'm not in any way setting up the Brit government as better or worse - it doesn't tend to have the deadlock problem but it's got plenty of others; I'm just interested to see what you lot think about it, as from this side of the pond it all seems completely dysfunctional.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Nov 5, 2014 7:58:50 GMT -5
The problem I have is that most politicians are so utterly unimpressive. One look at Sara Palin, Mitt Romney and Arnold Schwarzenegger should illustrate to all that our best and brightest aren't "in charge." Actually, I suppose they are, at least in a political sense, but they're the powers behind the throne and are content to play the game that Machiavelli taught them hundreds of years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2014 10:35:50 GMT -5
I already voted 2 days ago via absentee ballot ... I did my part in the democratic process. Thank god. And now genuine progressivism reigns in the land. /cynical (Nothing against you. Just tired, & have been for years, of the fact that anyone thinks "the democratic process" means a damned thing. I've used the comparison before that it's like a badly cracked, poorly patched cup. As long as people pour water in it, it's going to leak all over the place. But they've fooled themselves -- or, rather allowed themselves to be hoodwinked -- into thinking that the very act of pouring the water somehow means they've done something positive.) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2014 14:57:00 GMT -5
The second century of American politics is where all that equality came in though. Just saying. Which had little to nothing to do with the American political parties until it became a weapon they could bludgeon each other with and use for their own advantage. -M When you say American politicians don't care about people, and haven't since they literally owned slaves and considered their women to be property, I have to disagree. Maybe not all politicians care about all people, but the ones out there fighting for equality for persecuted minority groups are certainly fighting for the American people that need someone fighting for them. Something we see a lot more of today than we did in the 1800's. If you think they're just pretending to care because being a senator pays so much money, I'll also have to disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2014 15:10:55 GMT -5
I didn't say politicians. I said political parties. If you want t credit them for the gains of the 1950s and 1960s then you also have to blame them for taking away all the gains of the 1860s and 1870s that they stripped away from American people in the early 20th century for political reasons. Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier in the 1950s wouldn't have been necessary is the integrated major lrague baseball leagues of the 19th century had been left alone, but political pressure from the 2 main parties asnd laws they enacted led to MLD segregating. It was politicians like Woodrow Wilson, for all the other good he did, taking postions and jobs away from African Americans in the political system that they had gained in the upsurge of civil rights post 13th Amenedment that created the need for people to intervene in the 1950s and 1960s as part of the Civil Rights movement. Why take these things away-because it was for the good of the political parties to limit access to the political system, and to keep the status quo they wanted (not that existed) intact. This was very much in the second century of American politics as well. And the impetus of the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s did not come form the top and from politicians, but form the rank and file of society making waves until politicians had to take notice and act. You get no credit for joining the bandwagon when you have no other choice. Were certain individuals exceptions to this, certainly, but not political parties as a whole whose platforms worked against such things.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2014 15:14:31 GMT -5
But if society had tried that in the 1860's they'd have all been hung.And while back then not a single political parties platform worked for such things, today at least one major political parties platform is specifically tailored toward those exact things.
|
|
