I have to admit it, I really don't get the "Anybody But <Insert Name Here>!" attitude. I really don't.
"No one could be worse than <Insert Name Here>!"
Is it that hard to understand? Perhaps if you take the word "anybody" literally, but, you've got to realize that a comment like "Anybody but <Insert Name Here>!" generally means "Nearly anybody from the other party!"
The two party system we have in the US is far from ideal, but it's what we've got to work with. Fashionably dismissive cynicism aside, there are important differences between the two parties, and a good number of voters clearly find one of the two parties a much better match for their political philosophy than the other.
Is it really terribly surprising that most Democrats would think any one of the Democratic candidates would make them much happier than Bush?
If there'd been any truth to Bush's campaign rhetoric about being "a uniter, not a divider", the "Anybody but Bush!" sentiment might not be so strong, but rather than running a moderate presidency that reflected an almost evenly divided nation, Bush became one of the most ideologically partisan presidents we've ever had.
Maybe I wouldn't literally vote for any Democrat than Bush, but a Democrat would have to be truly awful before I'd vote for Bush instead. Even then, given the choice between an awful Democrat and Bush, I might just go the protest-vote route instead.
It's fairly clear what course Bush is going to take if he remains in office, and it's not a course I like. How any of the available Democrats would perform is an unknown quantity, but platforms and parties do make a difference, and the direction any Democrat would be likely to go much more appeals to me than the Bush agenda.
A Democratic President might find he's got a big problem getting anything past what may still be a fully Republican Congress. I don't care. I'd rather have gridlock with hardly anything getting done that swift action getting the wrong things done.
In Australia, representatives are chosen using preferential voting. Basically, a candidate for one of the two main parties gets in but because of preferential voting you AREN'T "throwing your vote away" by voting for minor party or independant candidates. "I want this guy to get it, but if he doesn't, put my vote down for her." Sometimes independants and minor party candidates even win.
We don't have a President, our Prime Minister is effectively our Head of State. Because he is picked by whoever is in power in the House, the House is reduced to ritualistic politiking (with the exception of "concience votes" we have sometimes, eg stem cell laws).
Because of the above, the real action occurs in the Senate (although the House gets more TV coverage), which uses proportional representation. Senators are the top twelve candidates with the most number of votes in each state and top two candidates from each territory. The system enables minor parties and independants to easily win seats in the Senate.
The practical consequence is a reasonably united dominant party in the House which has to work with minor parties in the Senate to achieve compromises on, well, pretty much everything. Preferential voting and proportional representation allow much more freedom in voting, and result in a more representative parliment than "First Past the Post" systems.
Another consequence is that any government that becomes extremely unpopular is quickly derailed by the Senate (eg the Whitlam government's dismissal in 1975 - the Senate refused to pass the annual budget). There is also greater accountability in the legislature because minor parties and independates will resist unpopular legislation.
is the green party even fielding a candidate this go round, or are they going to try to get bush out at all costs? i would think they would have to field someone, just so they can keep getting the vote in some states. and does the reform party even exist anymore?
I'm in New York which really isn't as liberal as most people think and the Bush supporters who had been proud as peacocks are getting awful quiet lately.
Off topic, I love our system of government. I think it's inefficiency is its greatest strength. Usually neither the Dems nor the Republicans have too much of an upperhand which fosters compromise and keeps the loonies from the left and right from getting too much control. We usually end up sailing not too far from the middle.
I think it would be funny if another Republican were to throw his hat into the ring
after all, my mother, who has been, all her life, much like Kickaha's parents, very very Conservative, loaths Bush so much she can't stand his image on TV . . .
And I mean my parents were canvasing door to door for Nixon and for Reagan, my dad has signed letters from Reagan . . .but now my mom despises Bush with trembles and clenched fists!!
as for the rest:
some semblance of a parliamentary system would help things here I think
I must admit I'm very surprised another Republican hasn't stepped up to challenge Bush. Sure, he's an incumbent, but it's pretty telling that none are willing to stand up for their beliefs and challenge on Republican issues. There's several doors left open to attack, and reasonably so. Does nobody on the right disagree with Bush? I doubt it. So where are they?
Comments
Originally posted by Kickaha
I have to admit it, I really don't get the "Anybody But <Insert Name Here>!" attitude. I really don't.
"No one could be worse than <Insert Name Here>!"
Is it that hard to understand? Perhaps if you take the word "anybody" literally, but, you've got to realize that a comment like "Anybody but <Insert Name Here>!" generally means "Nearly anybody from the other party!"
The two party system we have in the US is far from ideal, but it's what we've got to work with. Fashionably dismissive cynicism aside, there are important differences between the two parties, and a good number of voters clearly find one of the two parties a much better match for their political philosophy than the other.
Is it really terribly surprising that most Democrats would think any one of the Democratic candidates would make them much happier than Bush?
If there'd been any truth to Bush's campaign rhetoric about being "a uniter, not a divider", the "Anybody but Bush!" sentiment might not be so strong, but rather than running a moderate presidency that reflected an almost evenly divided nation, Bush became one of the most ideologically partisan presidents we've ever had.
Maybe I wouldn't literally vote for any Democrat than Bush, but a Democrat would have to be truly awful before I'd vote for Bush instead. Even then, given the choice between an awful Democrat and Bush, I might just go the protest-vote route instead.
It's fairly clear what course Bush is going to take if he remains in office, and it's not a course I like. How any of the available Democrats would perform is an unknown quantity, but platforms and parties do make a difference, and the direction any Democrat would be likely to go much more appeals to me than the Bush agenda.
A Democratic President might find he's got a big problem getting anything past what may still be a fully Republican Congress. I don't care. I'd rather have gridlock with hardly anything getting done that swift action getting the wrong things done.
We don't have a President, our Prime Minister is effectively our Head of State. Because he is picked by whoever is in power in the House, the House is reduced to ritualistic politiking (with the exception of "concience votes" we have sometimes, eg stem cell laws).
Because of the above, the real action occurs in the Senate (although the House gets more TV coverage), which uses proportional representation. Senators are the top twelve candidates with the most number of votes in each state and top two candidates from each territory. The system enables minor parties and independants to easily win seats in the Senate.
The practical consequence is a reasonably united dominant party in the House which has to work with minor parties in the Senate to achieve compromises on, well, pretty much everything. Preferential voting and proportional representation allow much more freedom in voting, and result in a more representative parliment than "First Past the Post" systems.
Another consequence is that any government that becomes extremely unpopular is quickly derailed by the Senate (eg the Whitlam government's dismissal in 1975 - the Senate refused to pass the annual budget). There is also greater accountability in the legislature because minor parties and independates will resist unpopular legislation.
Barto
Off topic, I love our system of government. I think it's inefficiency is its greatest strength. Usually neither the Dems nor the Republicans have too much of an upperhand which fosters compromise and keeps the loonies from the left and right from getting too much control. We usually end up sailing not too far from the middle.
after all, my mother, who has been, all her life, much like Kickaha's parents, very very Conservative, loaths Bush so much she can't stand his image on TV . . .
And I mean my parents were canvasing door to door for Nixon and for Reagan, my dad has signed letters from Reagan . . .but now my mom despises Bush with trembles and clenched fists!!
as for the rest:
some semblance of a parliamentary system would help things here I think