PoLiX Posted October 31, 2004 Report Posted October 31, 2004 I mean, look at how things are going in the US. Politics are no longer a debate on the topics, it's how bad you can attack and make your challengers look. Every day we lose more and more freedoms, and there is now reason for some people to not believe their votes are even counted. So what if you think they're wrong, they really should have no true proof or reason of this to cause any doubt, but sadly they do. I question it failing in my lifetime, but I have a feeling that in my children's or grandchildren's lifetime, the US will hit that critical point of internal hate, and something big will happen. (Side Note: let's see if we can't get into personal attacks in this, as many of you love to do in every thread i've so far read. That's half the reason i've made this post.)
A Soldier Posted October 31, 2004 Report Posted October 31, 2004 Attacking a candidate has always been a popular form of getting votes. People who don't follow politics and/or news much base their opinion on what they hear and more than often, jump to conclusions easily. Concerning freedoms, I do agree on that point; it seems that our liberties are being curved in the name of fighting terrorism. One problem with US politics is that there are only the democrats and republicans that can run for presidency or other form of governing. They have an overwhelming budget, can influence the medias, and because of the electoral vote system: how many college votes do you need in order to be president? 271 out of ~530? If you do the maths, you'll realize it's impossible to have three serious parties running for presidency. So, is the US leaning toward an oligarchy? I don't know, and I wish not. But democracy will prevail IMO, as long as we have an educated population and good leaders.I sincerly hope we learned from history.
Manus Celer Dei Posted October 31, 2004 Report Posted October 31, 2004 Failing that, you can always to migrate to New Zealand.
Vile Requiem Posted October 31, 2004 Report Posted October 31, 2004 New Zealand lost my vote when Miranda Otto stopped being there
Dr Brain Posted October 31, 2004 Report Posted October 31, 2004 We're a communist country by definition if not by name.
Dav Posted October 31, 2004 Report Posted October 31, 2004 The way i see it we live in a political no-win situation. Democrocy leads to corrupt leaders and lies, people dont know exactly what they will get if they vote for one leader over another. Communism doesnt work due to selfish human nature.
Yupa Posted October 31, 2004 Report Posted October 31, 2004 I honestly don't care. I'd almost welcome an evil supreme dictatorship, then I'd have a really good excuse to become an !@#$%^&*!@#$%^&*in and overthrow a government.
Aileron Posted October 31, 2004 Report Posted October 31, 2004 Look, the amount of money political people run for office with is not "huge", its quite sad actually. My mother hates Enzyte commercials to the point that she can't stand them. She gets visably upset from the exploits of Bob, his VERY happy missus, and his buddy Tom, to the point where she must change the station. The point being, there are a lot more Enzyte commercials on TV than there are political campaign commercials. Our nation is spending more advertising !@#$%^&* growth drugs than Presidential elections. Just compaire salaries...your average Yankees player makes more than your average President. All four of the presidential and vice presidential candidates made more money BEFORE they entered the political field. That is the problem with politics...we have cut down the salaries of politicians so much that the best people want to run corporations, leaving only charity cases like our current candidates. As for the electoral college system...note that the name is the United States. Analyze what that means for a minute, and the reason for the electoral college system should become clear. Dav, you are being negative. Politicians are viewed as evil because the media says so. I'd rather put faith in a politician who is going after a lower salery over a reporter seeking a higher one.
A Soldier Posted October 31, 2004 Report Posted October 31, 2004 Uhm..I don't really understand why you are comparing salaries because that was not my point... As of October 26th, republicans gathered 554.7 million dollars for their campain while the democrats had 451.8. Nader got ~1.5 million. Now, does the amount of money a party has can influence the campain? Of course. The point being' date=' there are a lot more Enzyte commercials on TV than there are political campaign commercials. Our nation is spending more advertising !@#$%^&* growth drugs than Presidential elections.[/quote']..?Are we are talking about the same thing?Medias have a big influence on the elections. Do you see news talking about other parties than the democrats or the republicans? I wasn't talking about ads. As for the electoral college system...note that the name is the United States. Analyze what that means for a minute' date=' and the reason for the electoral college system should become clear.[/quote']*scratches head*United States means two parties?
Live-Wire Posted October 31, 2004 Report Posted October 31, 2004 The US is not the first test of democracy.
Manus Celer Dei Posted October 31, 2004 Report Posted October 31, 2004 New Zealand lost my vote when Miranda Otto stopped being there <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Who? wtf? I'll have you know that we're the greatest country in the world.
Vile Requiem Posted October 31, 2004 Report Posted October 31, 2004 http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001584/ Note the "Eowyn" Section, and guess where that film was shot
Aileron Posted November 1, 2004 Report Posted November 1, 2004 United States means a group of states. Thus, it isn't a group of citizens of the United States, it is fifty groups of citizens of states, and the states are united. That is why we have the electoral college system. I was talking about the same thing you WERE talking about, now we are suddenly talking about the two party system. The problem with more candidates was demonstrated with the Bull Moose party...you could have two candidates with similar tickets spliting their half of the dominant mindset. The real problem here is the primaries. Right now the primaries are more of a shame, and the real election is the secondaries. It should be that the primaries are the big elections...where about 8 candidates push their issues, two are selected, and the secondary election being a minor event to close things off.
Dav Posted November 1, 2004 Report Posted November 1, 2004 I think a system where multiple parties exist in a single govgenmet house works well, it doesnt give the elcted party full control but does five them a majority acvcording to their support. This also give a better prospective when it comes to elections, anyone that followes politics knows how the respective parties act and which views they have throughout the term a govenment has in office, it also means that the opposition parties can place pressure on the prime minister to get things to happen. The biggest flaw in the UK system is that Labour could win next years election on a minority vote of 35% whereas a 45% majority is needed by the conservities to take office.
A Soldier Posted November 2, 2004 Report Posted November 2, 2004 you lost me ail The only critic I was giving to the college system is that it's impossible to have three serious party running for presidency because you need 271 out of 538 college votes. On the best case scenario, one party would win 271 electoral votes, leaving 268 to the two remaining parties. Simply pointing a flaw. I don't agree with the rest of your posts concerning primaries but I won't get into that. Anyways, re-read my first post on topic, and you'll see that yes, I was talking about the fact that having only two parties in the US could be a problem to democracy.
Manus Celer Dei Posted November 2, 2004 Report Posted November 2, 2004 http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001584/ Note the "Eowyn" Section, and guess where that film was shot <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I see now. Your ignorance is forgiven.
Aileron Posted November 2, 2004 Report Posted November 2, 2004 oh, you mean the 51% majority I'm sorry, most of the time ppl attack the electoral college system its about the scenario where a candidate loses the popular vote but wins the election. Well, there is a provision in the 51% marity rule...if the winning candidate doesn't get 51%, another vote is made by Congress I think.
Yupa Posted November 2, 2004 Report Posted November 2, 2004 We need some T&A in office. We need a president that can suck the chrome off a wagon hitch. That'd be good for foreign affairs.
MasterDrake Posted November 2, 2004 Report Posted November 2, 2004 well I guess the government doesn't want me to vote I havent got my absentee ballot yet :\
Aileron Posted November 2, 2004 Report Posted November 2, 2004 We need some T&A in office. We need a president that can suck the chrome off a wagon hitch. That'd be good for foreign affairs.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> We tried Clinton...that didn't work.
Recommended Posts