US Politics - Pretending that the Iowa caucuses matter for some reason

[lupis42]

How is refraining from choosing between the two major party candidates "winning"? And what exactly do you win?

A clear conscience, and hopefully better candidates the next time around.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

What ensures that is a first-past-the-post election system. Work to change the system if you want to see other parties; then I'll be right there with you voting for the candidates that best represent me. Until then I'll take the best I can get.

The "D" or "R" might still be there, but the positions held by those parties over time hardly have been a constant throughout history. Different factions and groups have risen within those parties and changed their message and focus. And mathematically, it would seem much easier for a group to become a majority within a major party, and seize control through the primary system, than it would to create an entirely new party.

[Padreic]

<p>

And if its an incredibly close election and your vote for the third party helps lead to someone you agree with maybe 2% of the time win over someone you agree with 25-30% of the time is that something you are okay with? Why? Isn't best to have the best available option, even if its not so good, win?

</p>

<p>Your argument here as well as the general voting-rationale you advocate appears to be based on the illusion that your vote actually makes a difference. Now, I am not familiar with the details of the US election system but I'm willing to bet that for most, if not all, individual people there has never been and will never be a general election in which their decision at the voting booth could have altered the outcome.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The point is simple: Either expected outcome is the wrong category for evaluating the rationality of someone's voting decision, or in almost all cases, staying at home is the only rational thing to do.</p>

[TrackerNeil]

A clear conscience, and hopefully better candidates the next time around.

Ah.

I wonder how all those Florida libbies who helped put George W. Bush in office in 2000 slept after the man invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, made a mockery of the US attorneys, outed a CIA agent over a fit of pique, and screwed up the Hurricane Katrina recovery effort by putting a horse-racer in charge. I'm guessing they didn't exactly sleep the sleep of the just.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Refusing to trade with someone is an act of war? And here I thought you were Mr. Libertarian. Or did you confuse "embargo" with "blockade"?

It's part of war. We have troops in Italy, doesn't mean we're at war with them cause there's a host of other shit that makes a war.

So us not wanting to put an embassy in Tehran (gee, I wonder why....) is an act of War?

In a war you cut off diplomacy. Combine it with a trade embargo and the case starts to get made.

I didn't see any evidence in your links that these were U.S., as opposed to Israeli, acts.

LOL

Since when has espionage been an act of war? Good grief, by that definition, we're at war with Israel too.

Just as stationing troops isn't an act of war, but when you combine it with trade embargos, cyber attacks, the cutting off of diplomacy, and everything else a VERY strong case is made.

What are you talking about here? I assume you're not talking about an unarmed drone taking pictures....

I guarantee the Iranians consider an act of war. And I'm guessing their opinion counts more than mine.

Uh, what? What invasion force do we have massed on their borders, ready to roll at a moment's notice?

Did you see the map? Are those troops just there to wash cars or what?

You know, maybe you should join the military or something and see what a war really looks like.

Heh. I'll get right on that.

EDIT:

I'm sure if the Chinese withdrew their ambassador, cut off trade, started flying drones over California, assassinated a few guys at Lockheed, hit NORAD with a cyber attack, and parked most of their Navy off of Long Beach harbor, and stated "nothing is off the table" if the US didn't give up it's nuclear stockpile, that you would take great comfort in knowing that they didn't actually mean it and weren't actually at war with us, or that the assassins might actually have been Cambodian.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FLOW,

But the power structure of the two parties remains intrenched. The peoples who's only concern is that one of these two parties remain in power, remain in power. See, Mitt Romney and his amazingly flexable spin for an example.

[lupis42]

Ah.

I wonder how all those Florida libbies who helped put George W. Bush in office in 2000 slept after the man invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, made a mockery of the US attorneys, outed a CIA agent over a fit of pique, and screwed up the Hurricane Katrina recovery effort by putting a horse-racer in charge. I'm guessing they didn't exactly sleep the sleep of the just.

Hopefully about as well as everyone who put the man who legalized extrajudicial murder and ended the 4th amendment into office. I'm done with "lesser of two evils". If it's evil, don't vote for it.

Or, if you prefer to hear it from dead white founders, Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.

[Shryke]

That's racism, not a desire for a continuation of the drug war.

We actually legalized medicinal cannabis last year, but our psychotic governor sued her own state (or something like that) in federal court to keep the confirmed will of the people from being law.

It's a desire for exchanging freedom for safety from scary brown people. For terrorism, just change the type of scary brown person in question.

[Shryke]

That's not a very nice thing to say, so I assume you can back it up. Here's the entirety of what you quoted from my post, so please tell me exactly what part of this was "bullshit":

We are losing manufacturing to a lot of countries other than China. For example, one of the recent green projects into which the U.S. taxpayer sunk over $500M to create jobs is going to result in the production of said autos in...Finland!

Because from everything I've read, the U.S. loaned over $500m to Fisker, which could not find any facility in the U.S. to manufacture the car. So, they did the research and other work here, but actually build the car itself at a plant in Finland, where they are still making them today. At the time the loan was made in 2009, they supposedly were going to be built in Delaware. But that hasn't panned out, and they're still being built in Finland.

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=14770875

The Administration's spin on this is that none of the loan money is actually going to the production facility in Finland. That seems rather immaterial given that money is fungible, and non-government money freed up by paying for workers and equipment in the U.S. with government money can then be spent elsewhere.

But regardless, that spin doesn't make the statement false. We loaned a company over $500B to develop and build this electric car, and it is being built in Finland. Maybe you don't take that as a sign of problems with the U.S. manufacturing base, but I do.

WHY are they going to Finland though? The only explanation the article gives, as I read, was that no one in the US is capable of producing them.

So it would appear the US just isn't good enough at this stuff to do it. And is thus losing jobs to a country with stronger labour rights and the like.

[SpicyTurkey]

Refusing to trade with someone is an act of war? And here I thought you were Mr. Libertarian. Or did you confuse "embargo" with "blockade"?

Sanctions are an act of war.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Lupis

I'm not saying that gays should vote Republican, but the electorate doesn't do much for them, or the hardline christian nutjobs, because these are "safe" votes on each side. As long as that continues to be true, they aren't going to get much respect unless they start demonstrating or donating on a much larger scale.

Speaking as an LBGT person, I feel very much respected by the Democratic Party, as compared to the Republican Party. I mean, first of all, not having a plank at the national convention condemning my sexuality is a great start in showing me respect, and then, follow by not having a plurality, if not majority, of the politicians in the party parleying votes with anti-gay messages would be a great second step. There are anti-gay elements in the Democratic parties, for sure (former Senator Nunn, I'm looking at you), and it's no perfect picnic over here (see, e.g. Clinton on DOMA). But speaking as one person, on my own behalf, yes, the Democratic Party respects me as an LBGT individual way the hell more than the Republican has ever managed in my living memory. I am also sad to say that from my perspective, in the foreseeable future, the GOP will remain the anti-gay party, despite perhaps a majority of their own base not really being as anti-gay as the party positions are.

I will also point out that the Democratic National Conventions have yet to forbid the pro-gay factions from setting up stalls, unlike the Republican National Convention where the Log Cabin people have had to fight to even get a spot, despite them raising money and working within the GOP.

So yeah, respect? That dog won't hunt, on this issue.

A clear conscience, and hopefully better candidates the next time around.

The first one I get, even as I disagree with the justification. The second? I don't get at all. What does voting 3rd party accomplish in terms og getting better candidates in the future?

Re: Padreic

<p></p>

<p>Your argument here as well as the general voting-rationale you advocate appears to be based on the illusion that your vote actually makes a difference. Now, I am not familiar with the details of the US election system but I'm willing to bet that for most, if not all, individual people there has never been and will never be a general election in which their decision at the voting booth could have altered the outcome.&nbsp;</p>

For most, probably not. But in some cases, a few votes do matter. See, for instance, the 2000 election in Gore v. Bush. Or the recent mid-term elections for several run-off cases that were determined by as few as a couple hundred votes out of tens of thousands of votes. If you're a Republican living in California, or a Democrat living in Texas, then yeah, your vote in the U.S. Presidential race doesn't count. But your vote still counts in the other Federal races, Governorship (Illinois electing a Republican, for instance), Senators, Representative, and down to the state government level candidates. The Presidential race is a bit of an odd duck due to the way that the electoral college is set up, but even then, for states that split their EC votes, it still does matter.

The point is simple: Either expected outcome is the wrong category for evaluating the rationality of someone's voting decision, or in almost all cases, staying at home is the only rational thing to do.

If by "rational" you mean convenient, or "rationalized," then sure.

[SpicyTurkey]

FLOW,

But the power structure of the two parties remains intrenched. The peoples who's only concern is that one of these two parties remain in power, remain in power. See, Mitt Romney and his amazingly flexable spin for an example.

What I find scary is both parties view on foreign policy. A sacred cow neither party is willing to disturb.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLOW,

But the power structure of the two parties remains intrenched. The peoples who's only concern is that one of these two parties remain in power, remain in power. See, Mitt Romney and his amazingly flexable spin for an example.

I don't understand what that means. Any party is going to have some structure to it. What matters is what the party does with that structure. The Democratic Party of 2011 isn't anything like the Democratic Party of 1850, or even 1950. That's because party members vote for different leaders within the party, and choose different candidates in the primaries. And a Romney could arise in any system, no matter how many parties.

To me, the core gripe of the "where is the third party option" folks is that not enough people share their views to actually form a party capable of competing, else, such like-minded people would already have come to dominat one of the two existing parties.

In our system, the primaries essential serve as a "semi-final" where various minor parties compete. As can be seen from the stable of GOP candidates, having multiple parties is no guarantee that the choice will be any better.

[Frog Eater]

Ah.

I wonder how all those Florida libbies who helped put George W. Bush in office in 2000 slept after the man invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, made a mockery of the US attorneys, outed a CIA agent over a fit of pique, and screwed up the Hurricane Katrina recovery effort by putting a horse-racer in charge. I'm guessing they didn't exactly sleep the sleep of the just.

As one of those voters who wanted to see a viable third party candidate, and then voted for Nader, thinking there was no real differences between the two main candidates, when even SNL was doing parody skits of GWB making a policy stance and Gore saying "I agree", we felt pretty shitty when we saw his Supreme Court nominies, his invasion of Iraq, his attempt at privatizing Social Security, and the gratuitous tax cuts for the wealthy. All of our goodwill around the world evaporated, bankrupting our country, all because GWB won Florida. I wish I had my vote back

[Shryke]

FLOW,

But the power structure of the two parties remains intrenched. The peoples who's only concern is that one of these two parties remain in power, remain in power. See, Mitt Romney and his amazingly flexable spin for an example.

Yes and that concern for staying in power is why their positions alter to capture voters.

Parties change. They adopt new policies and positions. They are not static.

[SpicyTurkey]

Speaking as an LBGT person, I feel very much respected by the Democratic Party, as compared to the Republican Party. I mean, first of all, not having a plank at the national convention condemning my sexuality is a great start in showing me respect, and then, follow by not having a plurality, if not majority, of the politicians in the party parleying votes with anti-gay messages would be a great second step. There are anti-gay elements in the Democratic parties, for sure (former Senator Nunn, I'm looking at you), and it's no perfect picnic over here (see, e.g. Clinton on DOMA). But speaking as one person, on my own behalf, yes, the Democratic Party respects me as an LBGT individual way the hell more than the Republican has ever managed in my living memory. I am also sad to say that from my perspective, in the foreseeable future, the GOP will remain the anti-gay party, despite perhaps a majority of their own base not really being as anti-gay as the party positions are.

I will also point out that the Democratic National Conventions have yet to forbid the pro-gay factions from setting up stalls, unlike the Republican National Convention where the Log Cabin people have had to fight to even get a spot, despite them raising money and working within the GOP.

So yeah, respect? That dog won't hunt, on this issue.

While respect makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside, that is not what I base my vote on. I base my vote on someone who wouldn't fuck me over by expanding the police state. You can call me a faggot, but as long as you vote against any governmental power that expands into my personal life, then I'm voting for you.

The first one I get, even as I disagree with the justification. The second? I don't get at all. What does voting 3rd party accomplish in terms og getting better candidates in the future?

It doesn't matter if you have a hundred parties, because as long as you have an idiotic population, things will remain the same regardless.

[lupis42]

Re: Lupis

Speaking as an LBGT person, I feel very much respected by the Democratic Party, as compared to the Republican Party. I mean, first of all, not having a plank at the national convention condemning my sexuality is a great start in showing me respect, and then, follow by not having a plurality, if not majority, of the politicians in the party parleying votes with anti-gay messages would be a great second step. There are anti-gay elements in the Democratic parties, for sure (former Senator Nunn, I'm looking at you), and it's no perfect picnic over here (see, e.g. Clinton on DOMA). But speaking as one person, on my own behalf, yes, the Democratic Party respects me as an LBGT individual way the hell more than the Republican has ever managed in my living memory. I am also sad to say that from my perspective, in the foreseeable future, the GOP will remain the anti-gay party, despite perhaps a majority of their own base not really being as anti-gay as the party positions are.

I will also point out that the Democratic National Conventions have yet to forbid the pro-gay factions from setting up stalls, unlike the Republican National Convention where the Log Cabin people have had to fight to even get a spot, despite them raising money and working within the GOP.

So yeah, respect? That dog won't hunt, on this issue.

Respect was the wrong word. What I mean is that the Democratic party panders to you in the way the Republicans pander to the Jesus-assholes, but you still get stuff like Clinton and DOMA, because they know you have nowhere else to go.

The first one I get, even as I disagree with the justification. The second? I don't get at all. What does voting 3rd party accomplish in terms og getting better candidates in the future?

When candidates are deciding whether or not to run, what to make an issue of, etc, one thing that anyone with half a brain is doing is looking at turnout and issues from the last election - region by region, policy by policy. When Barry Goldwater tanked, the Republican party basically abandonded the smaller government plank as anything but a talking point. When Nader took the election from Gore, and Kerry failed in the midterms, Democrats turned to slightly more radical candidates like Obama. If Romney loses a state by, say, 10000 votes but the state has less than 40% turnout, or 10% of the vote went to a third party, the next candidate is going to be looking to get those people off the couch or back from the third party.

[Shryke]

Because continually voting for the "best of the bad options" helps to ensure that your options are equally bad next time around. The average politician's goal is, effectively, to be ever so slightly over the bar where you'll vote for him, and ahead of the other guy. Every time you lower the bar, they can lower their efforts. If you raise the bar, they may not rise to meet it, but the next guy is going to try harder. The Tea Partiers in several states are demonstrating the effectiveness of this.

Yes, but notice that the Tea Party is working through the Republican party. That's the reason they are succeeding.

Romney is much more likely to win because of resentment and antipathy towards Obama stemming from the crappy economy than from any popular belief in his message. This will not help the existing Republican congress at all.

Yes, it will. You really don't seem to understand how the voting process works. Or the nature of coattails which are a huge deal.

When that voter steps into the booth to vote Romney they also, while they are there, vote for a bunch of other Republicans. The more voters your major candidate can get to the voting booth (and in this case, major means presidential), the more people he will get that also vote for other members of his party. Your candidates carries other members of his party on his coattails into office.

If Romney wins, he will do so by getting Republicans out to the voting booth and that means, while they are there, they will also vote for several other Republican candidates.

If Romney wins, he will drag alot of other Republicans into power with him. This is especially true in 2012 where the nature of the Senate elections already stacks the deck against the Democratic Party.

A track record of voting against, and speaking out against, unconstitutional expansions of federal power.

A track record of doing nothing is what you mean. Voting against the party on safe votes. Paul has always been all talk, no action.

It's not my uterus, but it's also not my family being held at gunpoint by SWAT teams because we might own the wrong plant. I'm not going to stop getting served in restaurants, but neither am I that likely to be thrown in prison on a trumped up charge, or have a bomb dropped on my head from a drone.

I agree that abortion and non-hetero-normal people's rights need protecting, but we're imprisoning (like, in real, PIMTA prison, for decades) kids who get convicted of things that more than one former US president has admitted to doing. We have a president who considers himself to have the authority to unilaterally imprison and kill people, without any sort of due process. That's simply not acceptable, at any price.

I guess if we are already firmly in the category of myth with a Ron Paul presidency, we can further posit the even more unlikely end to the drug war.

In the mean time, I'll take non-hypocrites, non-racists and people who don't shit on the rights of minorities.

Free trade and free immigration do not equal isolationism. He opposes using our military to police the world, which was exactly what the left was screaming for after eight years of the cowboy-in-chief, but as soon as we got a brown guy in the WH, bombing brown people as the national military pastime became Ok again?

No, the part where Ron Paul supporst isolationism does though.

And Obama has invaded nowhere new and did pretty much exactly what he said he would on the wars. Call me when he starts another Iraq invasion.

The rest of your post was paranoia and strawman bullshit I'm ignoring.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FLOW, Shryke,

The two parties care about having power, little else.

[TerraPrime]

Re: SpicyTurkey

While respect makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside, that is not what I base my vote on. I base my vote on someone who wouldn't fuck me over by expanding the police state. You can call me a faggot, but as long as you vote against any governmental power that expands into my personal life, then I'm voting for you.

It is rare to find someone who'd be willing to expound on their personal animosity towards gays while refusing to enact that belief through laws. In that sense, the overtly avowed attitude is indeed a reliable short-hand for the practical effects. If there are cases where the evidence is there to suggest that while this candidate is on the books for being anti-gay but who will not enact policies thereof, then I would give that candidate due consideration. But overall, an anti-gay outlook translates to anti-gay policies, far as I can tell.

It doesn't matter if you have a hundred parties, because as long as you have an idiotic population, things will remain the same regardless.

Well, duh. Tell me something new. Still, I don't see how this abandonment of the current system by staying home and refusing to vote is going to lessen the idiocy level of the voting population.

Re: lupis42

Respect was the wrong word. What I mean is that the Democratic party panders to you in the way the Republicans pander to the Jesus-assholes, but you still get stuff like Clinton and DOMA, because they know you have nowhere else to go.

Except that in the case of Clinton, we did get DADT, which was an improvement at the time. With Obama, we got the next step forward. Incrementalism, and all that. I am guessing that DoMA will be tackled more directly if Obama is re-elected, as well.

Those seem like pretty substantial policy gains to me, and not just empty words and platitudes.

When candidates are deciding whether or not to run, what to make an issue of, etc, one thing that anyone with half a brain is doing is looking at turnout and issues from the last election - region by region, policy by policy. When Barry Goldwater tanked, the Republican party basically abandonded the smaller government plank as anything but a talking point. When Nader took the election from Gore, and Kerry failed in the midterms, Democrats turned to slightly more radical candidates like Obama. If Romney loses a state by, say, 10000 votes but the state has less than 40% turnout, or 10% of the vote went to a third party, the next candidate is going to be looking to get those people off the couch or back from the third party.

Hmm... are we talking about different things? These will happen, indeed, but within the 2 parties. I thought the claim is that by voting third-party you are going to make third-parties more viable? Or did I misunderstand?