U.S. Politics, 9 trillion

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

The moral of the story is that elections take place and these elections elect people. Your lack of participation has no effect in this process, other then the abdication of your chance at influencing it's outcome. Again, someone is getting elected. That's a simple hard fact. The only question here is, which of the candidates would you rather it be.

You not voting does not send a message of any sort. In large part because it's indistinguishable from the people too lazy to vote or "too busy that day" to vote or whatever other excuse they have. No one is listening because by not voting, you are not saying anything. You aren't even opening your mouth.

I don't think I said don't vote. I said don't vote for the people who are actively fucking you.

[Alcibiades]

The fact that she has to start it off with "I'm not a Witch" meas it's pretty much a complete failure.

I agree. "If you're explaining, you're losing." And all that.

[Shryke]

I don't think I said don't vote. I said don't vote for the people who are actively fucking you.

Who ISN'T "actively fucking you" by your definition?

Regardless, voting always depends on the specific election in question. It's a matter of what outcome you are trying to accomplish. Like I said before: Voting is no different then anything else. Look at the outcomes that could realistically occur, choose the one that you want most and pursue that option.

Voting 3rd party in a Presidential election is barely better then not voting at all the vast majority of the time. At any time in recent history and the foreseeable future, the chance of the Presidency not going to a Democrat or a Republican is so small as to be irrelevant. It ain't happening. Pick which side you like best and go with that. This is the realities of the US presidential election system. (Part of the issue being that by the time November comes around, most of the actual voting for the Presidency has already taken place. Specifically, back in the primaries)

As you move down to more and more local governments, or further and further back the timeline to primaries and such, it becomes much less of an either/or proposition. 3rd party candidates are very viable in smaller or more local elections. And primaries are a great place to push for the people/policies you want, because there you have a larger selection of viable candidates and because pushing for person/policy X can get another candidate to take on that position in order to secure your votes.

It is, in the end, all dependent on the specific election and circumstances.

But the Presidential election is the least viable time for this because by that point, most of the choosing took place already. Focusing exclusively on the vote in November is the problem.

For other elections, it depends but generally the higher up you go, the less viable non-R/D candidates become.

[Shryke]

Actually, I'd disagree. Voting is a quantification of political voice. That's what the word means.

Now, after Citizens United, and Stevens' statement (paraphrasing here) that "a corporation putting money toward a particular candidate is an expression of their voice", voting is secondary to spending.

It's more that voting is highly influenced by spending.

Spending is so influential because it effects the way people vote.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

So, vote and vote for someone with a (D) or ® next to their name?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Who ISN'T "actively fucking you" by your definition?

Anyone who isn't a dem or a repub. Now I'm sure that many would fuck me if elected, but as of now, no one has the power to do it except the two parties.

Regardless, voting always depends on the specific election in question. It's a matter of what outcome you are trying to accomplish. Like I said before: Voting is no different then anything else. Look at the outcomes that could realistically occur, choose the one that you want most and pursue that option.

Voting 3rd party in a Presidential election is barely better then not voting at all the vast majority of the time. At any time in recent history and the foreseeable future, the chance of the Presidency not going to a Democrat or a Republican is so small as to be irrelevant. It ain't happening. Pick which side you like best and go with that. This is the realities of the US presidential election system. (Part of the issue being that by the time November comes around, most of the actual voting for the Presidency has already taken place. Specifically, back in the primaries)

As you move down to more and more local governments, or further and further back the timeline to primaries and such, it becomes much less of an either/or proposition. 3rd party candidates are very viable in smaller or more local elections. And primaries are a great place to push for the people/policies you want, because there you have a larger selection of viable candidates and because pushing for person/policy X can get another candidate to take on that position in order to secure your votes.

It is, in the end, all dependent on the specific election and circumstances.

But the Presidential election is the least viable time for this because by that point, most of the choosing took place already. Focusing exclusively on the vote in November is the problem.

Voting for a democrat or a republican always leads to a democrat or a republican being elected. Only voting for one of them because only one of them is going to win is a self perpetuating cycle. And if the point is only to vote for the one that wins why bother having a vote at all?

[Shryke]

No, you're not reading what I'm saying. Kennedy said "it is well understood that a substantial and legitimate reason, if not the only reason, to cast a vote for, or to make a contribution to, one candidate over another is that the candidate will respond by producing those political outcomes the supporter favors. Democracy is premised on responsiveness."

Voting = spending = voice. He's equating the three.

Ahh, I see what you are saying. I'd agree. It's the issue with no restrictions on campaign financing and such things. Once you allow spending to influence elections, you are implicitly saying that some peoples votes and voices matter more (because money = voice = votes and some people have more money then others)

[Shryke]

First of all, it's hard to take this seriously when you don't live or vote in the US.

Second, your conservative interpretation of the "reality" of my presidential election system acts as if things can't change. They do. It happens in the courts. Just like citizens united.

This is all a moot point anyway because voting is now (and its on the books), politically weaker than money.

Ah yes, not voting in the US means I can't study and understand the US political system. Such a perfectly logically sound argument. :rolleyes: Considering in this very thread I've already shown I know more then some Americans here about how your system works (see - filibuster comments from a few pages back), this argument is bullshit. Knowledge is not a function of nationality.

Second, while some aspects of the election can change occasionally, the basics of the system as they exist now essentially preclude the ability of 3rd party candidates from having a viable shot at the Presidency. Although alot of this is also a function of how these 3rd party candidates operate. Another factor is, of course, Duverger's law.

It's funny though since you talk alot about money and politics right, but completely miss how and why this helps cause the situation I'm talking about.

Shryke,

So, vote and vote for someone with a (D) or ® next to their name?

Did you skip the part where I said it depends on the circumstances? It's just that in a Presidential election, for instance, the circumstances are that those are only the 2 choices. At more locals level, this is not as true.

Though, again, it's only 2 choices if one ignores everything but the November election. The 2008 election wasn't between Obama and McCain. It was between Obama and McCain and Clinton and Biden and Edwards and Romney and Huckabee and so on. If you only enter the political process in Novermber, most of the decision making has already been made by other people.

One thing the whole "I hate both Republicans and Democrats!" thing ignores is that there's a HUGE spread in these parties. There has to be because they cover almost the entire US political spectrum between them. It's not just about voting for, say, a Democrat it's about what type of Democrat you might be voting for. And the primaries is where you can decide that.

[Shryke]

Exactly. It's exactly like making two = between money, votes, voice.

It's that line that makes Kennedy's opinion so horrifying, so damning for democracy, so fucking depressing.

Totally agree. Anything that equates money with political speech is fucking godawful.

As a sidenote to this and the other discussion, this is one of the things I really like in the Canadian system. Canada has public funding for political parties based on how many people vote for them. You literally get $X per vote your party receives. which helps fund smaller parties, making them viable and also means voting for parties that don't have a chance at winning in your riding is still very viable since it's helps fund the party and promote their policies.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Though, again, it's only 2 choices if one ignores everything but the November election. The 2008 election wasn't between Obama and McCain. It was between Obama and McCain and Clinton and Biden and Edwards and Romney and Huckabee and so on. If you only enter the political process in Novermber, most of the decision making has already been made by other people.

One thing the whole "I hate both Republicans and Democrats!" thing ignores is that there's a HUGE spread in these parties. There has to be because they cover almost the entire US political spectrum between them. It's not just about voting for, say, a Democrat it's about what type of Democrat you might be voting for. And the primaries is where you can decide that.

Voting for any democrat or any republican increases the power of those parties. It means that if anyone wants to attain office, they will have to join one. They will have to make compromises with that party, vote the way that party wants, raise funds for who that party supports. Every time a republican or democrat gets a vote, it makes it less likely that someone who isn't one will ever even run in the first place.

[alguien]

I hope everyone saw the new Christine O'Donnell ad:

Does anyone else find this ad creepy? I know there's a tendency to project onto politicians ideas or positions that they don't necessarily agree with, and politicians like to leave things vague to facilitate this sometimes. But I'm not sure I've seen anything like this, where a pol says "I'll go to washington and do what you'd do."

The lighting and and effects in that ad make it seem almost video-gamey to me.

She turned me into a newt!

... I got better.

ETA: apologies, I just couldn't resist the impulse.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

So primaries are really just the semi-finals leading up to the general election?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Alguien,

"Build a bridge out of 'er!"

[Fez]

Just as a side note, there are very occassionaly legitimate 3rd party candidates for president; Ross Perot in '92 being the prime example. And I suspect there will be another one in 2012, particularly if the economy still sucks and Sarah Palin gets the Republican nomination (and Nate Silver agrees, so there). I'd say a 3rd party candidate could win the presidency some day, but requires people who support his/her policies to actually vote for them instead of going with the 'safe' choice.

...of course if we could just get a ranked-ballot system in place that would solve pretty much everything.

[alguien]

This is a relatively new attitude toward politics, especially when it comes to things like war.

Is that attitude relatively new? I've always thought cynicism or "no good choices" has long been an attitude on world theater.

In any event, don't you think its more preferable to jingoism?

Or, more interestingly, ineffective idealism?

[Smashing Young Man]

Just as a side note, there are very occassionaly legitimate 3rd party candidates for president; Ross Perot in '92 being the prime example. And I suspect there will be another one in 2012, particularly if the economy still sucks and Sarah Palin gets the Republican nomination (and Nate Silver agrees, so there). I'd say a 3rd party candidate could win the presidency some day, but requires people who support his/her policies to actually vote for them instead of going with the 'safe' choice.

...of course if we could just get a ranked-ballot system in place that would solve pretty much everything.

If Palin gets the nod, I'll certainly be scrambling for a viable alternative. I really don't think she's going to run, however.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Tennessee Firemen ignore burning house over unpaid subscription fee

Firemen responding to an emergency call watched a house burn down because its owners had not paid a $75 (£47) local fire subscription fee....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8039814/Tennessee-Firemen-ignore-burning-house-over-unpaid-subscription-fee.html

Guess they should have paid the fee like others did. Oh well....

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Tennessee Firemen ignore burning house over unpaid subscription fee

Firemen responding to an emergency call watched a house burn down because its owners had not paid a $75 (£47) local fire subscription fee....

http://www.telegraph...iption-fee.html

Guess they should have paid the fee like others did. Oh well....

There is a complete thread for this.

[Shryke]

Duverger's law and what your saying doesn't matter, because, at least as I interpret it, voting 3rd party isn't about winning. It's exerting pressure on the dominant political parties.

Yes, exactly. But the key point is where this happens. And where it happens is, almost exclusively, in the Primaries. That's when you can push for a more leftist candidate or what have you. It's viable for a candidate to adopt policies of his primary opponents as he moves on to the general election, but it just doesn't happen very much after the nominee is chosen. It fucks up your messaging too much.

The other factor at play here is, of course, how fast you can move the political parties. The Democrats aren't gonna suddenly become Socialists over night. But you can shove them slowly and gradually in that direction. It also helps to have big popular figures out on the fringes to shove and stretch the Overton Window as much as you can, making more extreme positions less extreme over time. (The Right in the US has been very good at this)

Before you disagree, try to tell me that Perot and Nader weren't game changers in their respective elections.

Nader and Perot were spoilers. They influenced elections by taking votes away from their own side. (Duverger's Law at work here)

What positions did they advocate that were adopted by either of the major parties? That's the issue. They came in too late and too separate from the political process and with the goal of winning, not of influencing the political process. And thus they didn't accomplish much other then screwing over the party closer to their own platform. The big problem with 3rd party candidates is they want to get the big prize without building building a solid foundation first.

No, I missed this. Explain.

Part of the reason only the 2 parties are ever really winning the Presidency is that winning the Presidency requires a huge investment of money, time, manpower, influence, etc. These things are required to run and win a campaign of that magnitude. 3rd parties simply don't have them. You can't just pull a viable Presidential campaign out of your ass. It's built on a huge foundation of money and voters and influence that takes time to build. Often 3rd parties don't even bother to try and build up to it, which is the issue.

Shryke,

So primaries are really just the semi-finals leading up to the general election?

What else could they be?

Shit, you wanna know why you can't get rid of Corn Subsidies? Iowa. That's the power of primaries right there. An economically and socially destructive policy that leads to huge amounts of health problems. And it's almost impossible to get rid of.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Well, primaries could be considered the two major US political parties giving the impression to the public that they are the only options for election by having the selection of the candidates they plan to offer for the general election paid for by the US taxpayers.