Change your thinking. You're crazy to call yourself an American while supporting a party that has treated the constitution with such utter disregard and contempt.
And how, precisely, has the Democratic Party treated the Constitution with utter disregard?
Funny, the Green party wants to excise entire chunks of Article I. That's pretty contemptuous to me.
Quote:
The two party strangehold is killing this country.
A two party system is the only tenable model, at the presidential level, in an America governed by our Constitution as it stands now.
But we know how bad Bush is. Bad as Kerry may be, it's highly unlikely that it will be comparable to what Bush has done. Highly unlikely.
No matter what, you have a choice between Kerry or Bush.
From the perspective of Nader supporters, this isn't the case. Democrats and Republicans are both for globalized trade. Democrats and Republicans are both for the continued occupation of Iraq. Do you really think that Kerry is going to push the Kyoto accords? Clinton just gave them lip service and didn't actually push for them. Gore was the guy who argued for NAFTA. In the eyes of Nader supporters, there really isn't that much of a difference between the Democrats and Republicans.
A two party system is the only tenable model, at the presidential level, in an America governed by our Constitution as it stands now.[/B]
Er, I hate to say you're wrong, but... you're wrong.
The two party system is a result of our asinine one-vote-and-that's-all-you-get voting system... which isn't anywhere in the Constitution. Each state is allowed to choose it's own delegates based on the electoral college, in which ever way it sees fit. Currently, it's universally a one-vote system, regardless of the fact that it is one of the *least* appropriate voting systems for reaching a consensus. Instead, it's endpoint is polarization between two parties. Voila.
Feb 2004 Scientific American has a good rundown of various voting mechanisms, and the one that comes out on top by almost any criteria is preferred ranking. "Kerry, then Nader, and never Bush" for the ANybody But Bush crowd, "Bush" for the far right, "Kerry, Bush, Nader" for me, etc, etc. For n candidates, the voter ranks them into their preferred order. For candidates that they'd *never* be happy with, they just ignore them. Their first ranking gets n points from them, second place gets n-1, third gets n-2, etc. Neat mechanism, simple to implement, simple to understand. At no time does giving points to another candidate take away from your preferred one! So voting "Nader, Kerry" still gives pts to Kerry, and none to Bush, pushing *both* candidates ahead, just one more than the other. If the far right camp really and truly *ONLY* wants Bush, then pts only go to him... but no more than Nader would get in the above scenario... and Kerry would *still* get pts. It's really quite slick, easy, and clean.
Reform the voting procedures, and the two party system starts to crumble.
Which pretty much ensures that we'll never see it happen - too much power is at stake for precisely those who have the means to change it.
From the perspective of Nader supporters, this isn't the case. Democrats and Republicans are both for globalized trade. Democrats and Republicans are both for the continued occupation of Iraq. Do you really think that Kerry is going to push the Kyoto accords? Clinton just gave them lip service and didn't actually push for them. Gore was the guy who argued for NAFTA. In the eyes of Nader supporters, there really isn't that much of a difference between the Democrats and Republicans.
There are people I would rather see as president. But the fact is that there are only two people to choose from: Kerry and Bush. That's it.
I remember seeing as well. It was very intriguing. Very Apple if you like. Make it so simplistic that it's actually revolutionary. I agree there is zero percent chance of seeing it implemented in my life time, but one can always dream.
Yeah, both parties vary on their viewpoints in regards to virtually every issue, but ultimately the are fundamentally similar.
Not one single individual since Kennedy has taken it upon himself to try and create real change in this country. Since him it has been all talk and little substance, as far as domestic policy is concerned. Foreign policy is a matter but parties continually struggle with, but right now I'd rather address the issues here at home.
Until there is a candidate willing to stick his neck out and call for the wholesale reduction of fossil fuel consumption and our resulting dependence on the middle east, which nobody has done, and demand we move to viable alternative fuel sources, I will not vote.
Until someone grows a pair and calls out in public all the bullshit pork spending our government continually burdens us with, I will not vote.
Until someone opposes the political correctness that handcuffs real progress in social politics, I will not vote.
The argument used to be "if you didn't vote you can't complain." But that no longer rings true. By not voting I and many like me stand true to our beliefs and refuse to support a two party system that talks different games, but play those games the exact same way. I will not vote for the lesser of two evils. I will not vote for anything I consider to be less than visionary, thought provoking and substantive.
When a real politician comes around, he or she will get my vote. But until that day, nobody will.
And how, precisely, has the Democratic Party treated the Constitution with utter disregard?
Funny, the Green party wants to excise entire chunks of Article I. That's pretty contemptuous to me.
[/B]
First of all, I'm no Green, I just support the rights of people to assemble. Anyone who gets in the way of that is obstructive. Second of all, I'm a big fan of free speech, and I don't like political correctness. It's becoming more and more of a barrier to progress than anything else. So many democrat-lead tax incentives really drive me nuts as well. I don't appreciate how minority or female run firms get big breaks from uncle sam. Bigger than you think.
By not voting I and many like me stand true to our beliefs and refuse to support a two party system that talks different games, but play those games the exact same way.
No I do not give up. I was speaking of the two parties. I wasn't saying I won't vote at all, though I do not fault those who choose not to vote at all, nor do I consider it giving up. I think the people who vote for the sake of voting rather than carefully selecting a candidate that represents them to be the ones who've given up.
No I do not give up. I was speaking of the two parties. I wasn't saying I won't vote at all, though I do not fault those who choose not to vote at all, nor do I consider it giving up. I think the people who vote for the sake of voting rather than carefully selecting a candidate that represents them to be the ones who've given up.
Unless you yourself are running for president, it is a compromise. You have to deal with what you are dealt. If you don't vote to push it in the direction you want, then all you are doing is saying you give up until it fits your fantasy.
Guess what: your ideal will likely never come along. This is a politician for the whole country. You can't expect him to conform to your fantasy while still appealing to rest of the US.
The fact is that someone is going to be president, and it's going to be one of two people. If you don't want to vote, so be it. But don't bitch about your choices. If you aren't participating then it's your fault.
Only real loonies think that any politician is the ideal. The whole point of the democratic system is that it becomes a compromise.
Unless you yourself are running for president, it is a compromise. You have to deal with what you are dealt. If you don't vote to push it in the direction you want, then all you are doing is saying you give up until it fits your fantasy.
Guess what: your ideal will likely never come along. This is a politician for the whole country. You can't expect him to conform to your fantasy while still appealing to rest of the US.
The fact is that someone is going to be president, and it's going to be one of two people. If you don't want to vote, so be it. But don't bitch about your choices. If you aren't participating then it's your fault.
Only real loonies think that any politician is the ideal. The whole point of the democratic system is that it becomes a compromise.
Again, I did not say I was forfeiting my vote. i was saying those things about the two major parties. i will vote third party this year just like in the past. And the fact that one of two people will be president is the result of endless compromise by people over the years. A certain amount of compromise is always necessary, but we've compromised to the point now that we no longer vote for who we want, we vote against those we don't want. that's a poor way to do anything.
Who's bitching? Is calling politicians for the useless drones they are bitching? If it is, okay fine I'm bitching. But perhaps more people should.
I like the logic though: One of these two guys is going to win, so you should vote for one to make sure the other one doesn't win, otherwise you're uncompromising and bitchy. Seems to be a nice way to wrap things up.
Hey hom, how about taking some downers for a sec. Had you read my reply to giant, you'd see that I said i was speaking of not voting for the two major parties, not foregoing voting entirely.
My bad, I know not to post angry, not at you by the way . I misread you post and will edit it accordingly.
He has ideals. While so many democrats and republicans alike seem to twist and turn in discomfort at the thought of a candidate with actual integrity and ideals, most reasonable people can realize that Nader's existence will force change if he continues to hurt Democrat attempts at the presidency.
Having ideals is a good thing. But inserting one's ideals into presidential elections at the most critical moment is foolhardy and ill-advised.
Quote:
Change your thinking. You're crazy to call yourself an American while supporting a party that has treated the constitution with such utter disregard and contempt.
Splinemodel, I am a registered Democrat. I have *never* voted for a Republican for president. But I have views on both sides of the political continuum.
The FBI and CIA were effectively emasculated decades ago due to the strictures put upon them. Had those strictures been a little more reasonable, 9/11 might well have been prevented. We'd have had good human intelligence all over the globe, and none of the recent horrors could have come upon us as surprises.
I am *for* enabling the security agencies that protect our country to be able to do their jobs effectively. They must be monitored, of course; they can't be given carte blanche. Their new investigative powers must be thought through carefully. But I want to give them what they need to track down these terrorist sleeper cells...these vipers that lurk so 'innocently' and treacherously in the benevolent and trusting embrace of our freedoms.
Quote:
The two party strangehold is killing this country.
Both parties make me feel nauseated. We *really* desperately need campaign-finance reform. Then politicians wouldn't be bought and sold as they are now. It's SO depressing. Sorry. I guess I am a fatalist at present.
well that's your problem. you're supposed to be looking at www.whitehouse.com (NWS)
i'll probably be voting for nader again this year, for most of the already mentioned reasons. both parties are whores. what we really need though is a good libertarian canidate.
Comments
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Change your thinking. You're crazy to call yourself an American while supporting a party that has treated the constitution with such utter disregard and contempt.
And how, precisely, has the Democratic Party treated the Constitution with utter disregard?
Funny, the Green party wants to excise entire chunks of Article I. That's pretty contemptuous to me.
The two party strangehold is killing this country.
A two party system is the only tenable model, at the presidential level, in an America governed by our Constitution as it stands now.
Kirk
Originally posted by Splinemodel
most reasonable people can realize that Nader's existence will force change if he continues to hurt Democrat attempts at the presidency.
Will it? So far it's done exactly the opposite.
Originally posted by giant
But we know how bad Bush is. Bad as Kerry may be, it's highly unlikely that it will be comparable to what Bush has done. Highly unlikely.
No matter what, you have a choice between Kerry or Bush.
From the perspective of Nader supporters, this isn't the case. Democrats and Republicans are both for globalized trade. Democrats and Republicans are both for the continued occupation of Iraq. Do you really think that Kerry is going to push the Kyoto accords? Clinton just gave them lip service and didn't actually push for them. Gore was the guy who argued for NAFTA. In the eyes of Nader supporters, there really isn't that much of a difference between the Democrats and Republicans.
Originally posted by Kirkland
A two party system is the only tenable model, at the presidential level, in an America governed by our Constitution as it stands now.[/B]
Er, I hate to say you're wrong, but... you're wrong.
The two party system is a result of our asinine one-vote-and-that's-all-you-get voting system... which isn't anywhere in the Constitution. Each state is allowed to choose it's own delegates based on the electoral college, in which ever way it sees fit. Currently, it's universally a one-vote system, regardless of the fact that it is one of the *least* appropriate voting systems for reaching a consensus. Instead, it's endpoint is polarization between two parties. Voila.
Feb 2004 Scientific American has a good rundown of various voting mechanisms, and the one that comes out on top by almost any criteria is preferred ranking. "Kerry, then Nader, and never Bush" for the ANybody But Bush crowd, "Bush" for the far right, "Kerry, Bush, Nader" for me, etc, etc. For n candidates, the voter ranks them into their preferred order. For candidates that they'd *never* be happy with, they just ignore them. Their first ranking gets n points from them, second place gets n-1, third gets n-2, etc. Neat mechanism, simple to implement, simple to understand. At no time does giving points to another candidate take away from your preferred one! So voting "Nader, Kerry" still gives pts to Kerry, and none to Bush, pushing *both* candidates ahead, just one more than the other. If the far right camp really and truly *ONLY* wants Bush, then pts only go to him... but no more than Nader would get in the above scenario... and Kerry would *still* get pts. It's really quite slick, easy, and clean.
Reform the voting procedures, and the two party system starts to crumble.
Which pretty much ensures that we'll never see it happen - too much power is at stake for precisely those who have the means to change it.
Originally posted by Yevgeny
From the perspective of Nader supporters, this isn't the case. Democrats and Republicans are both for globalized trade. Democrats and Republicans are both for the continued occupation of Iraq. Do you really think that Kerry is going to push the Kyoto accords? Clinton just gave them lip service and didn't actually push for them. Gore was the guy who argued for NAFTA. In the eyes of Nader supporters, there really isn't that much of a difference between the Democrats and Republicans.
There are people I would rather see as president. But the fact is that there are only two people to choose from: Kerry and Bush. That's it.
I remember seeing as well. It was very intriguing. Very Apple if you like. Make it so simplistic that it's actually revolutionary. I agree there is zero percent chance of seeing it implemented in my life time, but one can always dream.
Not one single individual since Kennedy has taken it upon himself to try and create real change in this country. Since him it has been all talk and little substance, as far as domestic policy is concerned. Foreign policy is a matter but parties continually struggle with, but right now I'd rather address the issues here at home.
Until there is a candidate willing to stick his neck out and call for the wholesale reduction of fossil fuel consumption and our resulting dependence on the middle east, which nobody has done, and demand we move to viable alternative fuel sources, I will not vote.
Until someone grows a pair and calls out in public all the bullshit pork spending our government continually burdens us with, I will not vote.
Until someone opposes the political correctness that handcuffs real progress in social politics, I will not vote.
The argument used to be "if you didn't vote you can't complain." But that no longer rings true. By not voting I and many like me stand true to our beliefs and refuse to support a two party system that talks different games, but play those games the exact same way. I will not vote for the lesser of two evils. I will not vote for anything I consider to be less than visionary, thought provoking and substantive.
When a real politician comes around, he or she will get my vote. But until that day, nobody will.
Originally posted by Kirkland
And how, precisely, has the Democratic Party treated the Constitution with utter disregard?
Funny, the Green party wants to excise entire chunks of Article I. That's pretty contemptuous to me.
[/B]
First of all, I'm no Green, I just support the rights of people to assemble. Anyone who gets in the way of that is obstructive. Second of all, I'm a big fan of free speech, and I don't like political correctness. It's becoming more and more of a barrier to progress than anything else. So many democrat-lead tax incentives really drive me nuts as well. I don't appreciate how minority or female run firms get big breaks from uncle sam. Bigger than you think.
Originally posted by rageous
By not voting I and many like me stand true to our beliefs and refuse to support a two party system that talks different games, but play those games the exact same way.
So basically you just give up.
Originally posted by SwitchingSoon
Nader should be allowed to run. It's america.
Is it still? <looks at whitehouse.gov>
Originally posted by giant
So basically you just give up.
No I do not give up. I was speaking of the two parties. I wasn't saying I won't vote at all, though I do not fault those who choose not to vote at all, nor do I consider it giving up. I think the people who vote for the sake of voting rather than carefully selecting a candidate that represents them to be the ones who've given up.
Originally posted by rageous
No I do not give up. I was speaking of the two parties. I wasn't saying I won't vote at all, though I do not fault those who choose not to vote at all, nor do I consider it giving up. I think the people who vote for the sake of voting rather than carefully selecting a candidate that represents them to be the ones who've given up.
Unless you yourself are running for president, it is a compromise. You have to deal with what you are dealt. If you don't vote to push it in the direction you want, then all you are doing is saying you give up until it fits your fantasy.
Guess what: your ideal will likely never come along. This is a politician for the whole country. You can't expect him to conform to your fantasy while still appealing to rest of the US.
The fact is that someone is going to be president, and it's going to be one of two people. If you don't want to vote, so be it. But don't bitch about your choices. If you aren't participating then it's your fault.
Only real loonies think that any politician is the ideal. The whole point of the democratic system is that it becomes a compromise.
Originally posted by giant
Unless you yourself are running for president, it is a compromise. You have to deal with what you are dealt. If you don't vote to push it in the direction you want, then all you are doing is saying you give up until it fits your fantasy.
Guess what: your ideal will likely never come along. This is a politician for the whole country. You can't expect him to conform to your fantasy while still appealing to rest of the US.
The fact is that someone is going to be president, and it's going to be one of two people. If you don't want to vote, so be it. But don't bitch about your choices. If you aren't participating then it's your fault.
Only real loonies think that any politician is the ideal. The whole point of the democratic system is that it becomes a compromise.
Again, I did not say I was forfeiting my vote. i was saying those things about the two major parties. i will vote third party this year just like in the past. And the fact that one of two people will be president is the result of endless compromise by people over the years. A certain amount of compromise is always necessary, but we've compromised to the point now that we no longer vote for who we want, we vote against those we don't want. that's a poor way to do anything.
Who's bitching? Is calling politicians for the useless drones they are bitching? If it is, okay fine I'm bitching. But perhaps more people should.
I like the logic though: One of these two guys is going to win, so you should vote for one to make sure the other one doesn't win, otherwise you're uncompromising and bitchy. Seems to be a nice way to wrap things up.
Originally posted by rageous
Hey hom, how about taking some downers for a sec. Had you read my reply to giant, you'd see that I said i was speaking of not voting for the two major parties, not foregoing voting entirely.
My bad, I know not to post angry, not at you by the way
Originally posted by Splinemodel
He has ideals. While so many democrats and republicans alike seem to twist and turn in discomfort at the thought of a candidate with actual integrity and ideals, most reasonable people can realize that Nader's existence will force change if he continues to hurt Democrat attempts at the presidency.
Having ideals is a good thing. But inserting one's ideals into presidential elections at the most critical moment is foolhardy and ill-advised.
Change your thinking. You're crazy to call yourself an American while supporting a party that has treated the constitution with such utter disregard and contempt.
Splinemodel, I am a registered Democrat. I have *never* voted for a Republican for president. But I have views on both sides of the political continuum.
The FBI and CIA were effectively emasculated decades ago due to the strictures put upon them. Had those strictures been a little more reasonable, 9/11 might well have been prevented. We'd have had good human intelligence all over the globe, and none of the recent horrors could have come upon us as surprises.
I am *for* enabling the security agencies that protect our country to be able to do their jobs effectively. They must be monitored, of course; they can't be given carte blanche. Their new investigative powers must be thought through carefully. But I want to give them what they need to track down these terrorist sleeper cells...these vipers that lurk so 'innocently' and treacherously in the benevolent and trusting embrace of our freedoms.
The two party strangehold is killing this country.
Both parties make me feel nauseated. We *really* desperately need campaign-finance reform. Then politicians wouldn't be bought and sold as they are now. It's SO depressing. Sorry. I guess I am a fatalist at present.
Carol
Is it still? <looks at whitehouse.gov>
well that's your problem. you're supposed to be looking at www.whitehouse.com (NWS)
i'll probably be voting for nader again this year, for most of the already mentioned reasons. both parties are whores. what we really need though is a good libertarian canidate.