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.
Can I ask a honest question, if you would prefer a Libertarian candidate, why would you support Nader?
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.
Hey Kicks -
I like this idea. If I *do* take some time off from teaching, maybe I could start agitating for such changes. People tend to believe that one person can do nothing to effect change; but I have found that's not strictly true.
I have written letters of concern about various issues ('not' political) from time to time, and 'things' have changed as a result. I have been amazed, frankly, at the results that can be produced by logical and well-reasoned arguments, sent to people who *do* have power to effect change.
It's quite exciting, really. The 'key' is in sending those arguments to the *right* people. People who are "honest, good and true".
I guess I am a fatalist when I'm tired; but when I'm rested and my energies are flowing, I generally believe that amazing things are indeed possible, that one person *can* make a difference, and that grass-roots movements *can* work if there are people involved who are truly skilled at making the case (in writing and in speeches) for certain changes, and who are clever enough to find ways to get access to the media. heh.
Having ideals is a good thing. But inserting one's ideals into presidential elections at the most critical moment is foolhardy and ill-advised.
Wow, so it sucks to actually believe something? I guess we can't let what someone believes get in the way of what will get someone elected... how Clintonesque. Sorry, I think that leadership means telling the polls to go for a walk every once in a while.
Quote:
Originally posted by Carol A
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.
Yes, the CIA in particular was emasculated (the FBI has always had a tendency to play more by the rules, and as such wasn't emasculated as much). Basically, only the NSA and NRO were left free to do what they wanted.
Quote:
Originally posted by Carol A
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.
I am curious... how exactly did McCain-Feingold inadequately reform campaign financing? I guess the rise of "non associated" advocacy groups is an unexpected outgrowth of the campaign finance reform, but how exactly do you see politicians being bought off?
Of course, when groups like moveon.org start hiring half of the democratic national committee, then they look less like loosely associated groups and more like ways to get around campaign financing restrictions. In an odd way, if such groups are allowed to exist, then you have basically bypassed all restrictions on giving. Is there a quid pro quo (spoken or unspoken) with such groups (e.g. club for growth)? I can't imagine that there isn't. If I had my way, such groups would be very heavily regulated, particularly when they aren't about an issue, but are simply against a candidate (the difference between a PAC and an attack dog).
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.
I thought I'd make my position from the other thread ( I didn't get a chance since the thread was closed ). I said " He's already done enough damage ". You said " How has Nader done enough damage ? "
I meant Bush has already done enough damamge.
Sure Nader should be allowed to run. Anyone who wants to should.
However because of who we have in office at this time I just feel we need to focus on getting rid of him first. Then we can try to change the system when things are less urgent.
Obviously, most anyone can run for the presidency if they can get the votes to get on the abllot. My question is this: how should the media and others respond to Nader's candidacy? <snip>
What do you all think?
Well, Kerry will offer him a newly created position of Secretary of Consumer Affairs. Hmm...maybe there oughta be another prerequisite or two, besides age and (at present anyway) being born in the U.S...
Comments
Originally posted by alcimedes
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.
Can I ask a honest question, if you would prefer a Libertarian candidate, why would you support Nader?
at least i know nader hasn't been bought and paid for.
Originally posted by Kickaha
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.
Hey Kicks -
I like this idea. If I *do* take some time off from teaching, maybe I could start agitating for such changes. People tend to believe that one person can do nothing to effect change; but I have found that's not strictly true.
I have written letters of concern about various issues ('not' political) from time to time, and 'things' have changed as a result. I have been amazed, frankly, at the results that can be produced by logical and well-reasoned arguments, sent to people who *do* have power to effect change.
It's quite exciting, really. The 'key' is in sending those arguments to the *right* people. People who are "honest, good and true".
I guess I am a fatalist when I'm tired; but when I'm rested and my energies are flowing, I generally believe that amazing things are indeed possible, that one person *can* make a difference, and that grass-roots movements *can* work if there are people involved who are truly skilled at making the case (in writing and in speeches) for certain changes, and who are clever enough to find ways to get access to the media. heh.
Originally posted by Carol A
Having ideals is a good thing. But inserting one's ideals into presidential elections at the most critical moment is foolhardy and ill-advised.
Wow, so it sucks to actually believe something? I guess we can't let what someone believes get in the way of what will get someone elected... how Clintonesque. Sorry, I think that leadership means telling the polls to go for a walk every once in a while.
Originally posted by Carol A
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.
Yes, the CIA in particular was emasculated (the FBI has always had a tendency to play more by the rules, and as such wasn't emasculated as much). Basically, only the NSA and NRO were left free to do what they wanted.
Originally posted by Carol A
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.
I am curious... how exactly did McCain-Feingold inadequately reform campaign financing? I guess the rise of "non associated" advocacy groups is an unexpected outgrowth of the campaign finance reform, but how exactly do you see politicians being bought off?
Of course, when groups like moveon.org start hiring half of the democratic national committee, then they look less like loosely associated groups and more like ways to get around campaign financing restrictions. In an odd way, if such groups are allowed to exist, then you have basically bypassed all restrictions on giving. Is there a quid pro quo (spoken or unspoken) with such groups (e.g. club for growth)? I can't imagine that there isn't. If I had my way, such groups would be very heavily regulated, particularly when they aren't about an issue, but are simply against a candidate (the difference between a PAC and an attack dog).
as i mentioned once before in another Nader thread, the last time he ran, even John McCain said he had some good ideas. i like McCain
i will not vote this year
both Kerry and Bush are clowns
edit: i voted for nader in 2000
Originally posted by rageous
yes, kickaha.
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.
I thought I'd make my position from the other thread ( I didn't get a chance since the thread was closed ). I said " He's already done enough damage ". You said " How has Nader done enough damage ? "
I meant Bush has already done enough damamge.
Sure Nader should be allowed to run. Anyone who wants to should.
However because of who we have in office at this time I just feel we need to focus on getting rid of him first. Then we can try to change the system when things are less urgent.
Originally posted by Yevgeny
Obviously, most anyone can run for the presidency if they can get the votes to get on the abllot. My question is this: how should the media and others respond to Nader's candidacy? <snip>
What do you all think?
Well, Kerry will offer him a newly created position of Secretary of Consumer Affairs. Hmm...maybe there oughta be another prerequisite or two, besides age and (at present anyway) being born in the U.S...