I'm inclined to think the bolded is a case of politicians influencing their constituents, by using their political soap boxes to espouse the threats of other nations and whatnot. And then there was that story a couple of months back about the reporter that sat in on a meeting beetween a congressmen and a lobbyist, and the congressmen straight up said "how big of a check will you cut me if I vote for this?"  Googling generic terms like lobbyist and congressmen isn't turning any articles, however.

I can't help but feel that in many situations, a corporation influences a congressmen, who in turn influences their own constituents, and in others a corporation directly influences the voter.  And in many more the congressmen's simply voting on an issue their constituents probably won't care about or ever even hear about, and thus they know it won't really effect their chances for re-election either way, but it still negatively influences the voter.

Given your post in the Russian thread, I guess you'd feel that congressmen seemingly not voting in our best interests all goes back to our FPTP system?  That, while a lot of people may not support increased military spending, most people do, and that manifests itself in both major parties?  

I suppose that could partially cause the problems I'm talking about.  The major parties adopting a platform probably creates a sort of feedback loop where that then influences parts of the population to support such positions when they otherwise might not, simply because they are unaware of decent alternatives.  Thus if, for example, the Green party gained some significant presence on the national stage, we'd also see an increase in support for something like single-payer healthcare as Green politicians talk about its benefits in speeches, etc.

So following this line of thinking, in the end it would all boil down to what politicians are runnning, and the current limit on which politicians do well has to do with FPTP instead of corporate influence.

I could just see the outcry on that.  I believe the NAACP would compare it to Jim Crow laws even if it was a test that a 12th grader should be able to pass. If you can't solve basic math, science, English, etc questions then you probably don't need to be voting.  How about if you failed on obtaining a GED then you can't vote.  If you can't vote if you committed a felony then you shouldn't be able to vote if you are completely stupid.

I think they should at least take the party line voting out of the electronic machines (where you can just select vote for all Republicans or Democrats).  That is USA laziness at its best and shows how most people vote (look into the actual candidates).  Sure it wouldn't stop the pure party line voting but at least you'll make the person click on every single vote.  A national holiday on election day which most democracies have would probably improve voter turn out. 

Yeah, of course they would. If they think it's racist to need a government ID to participate in a government election, there's no way they'd stand for anything like what I proposed.

I don't think I've seen a mechanism that lets you just pick to vote a straight ticket like that, but if you mean that the ballot should not indicate what party a candidate represents, I've been in favor of that for a long time.

Have you been keeping track of polls in swing states and the electoral map?

The current situation would require Mitt Romney to win almost every swing state to get 270 EVs, but Obama's up in most.  Prior to Wisconsin becoming a proper swing state with the Ryan pick (before it was consistently up 6+ points for Obama), Obama had to only win a single swing state to take the election.

Based on current poll aggregates, I'd say this is the most likely electoral map, leaving Wisconsin and Florida as toss-ups until further data comes in:

http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=sAc

Prior to the Ryan pick, I would've put Wisconsin for Obama and still left Florida up for grabs.

But the point is, even if Romney takes both Wisconsin and Florida, he still only has 244 votes.  

So let's say these are the total states (real swing states, not "swing" states like Pennsylvania):

Ohio
Iowa
Virginia
North Carolina
Colorado
Wisconsin 
Florida

If Romney takes them all but Florida, he still loses.  If he takes them all but Ohio, he barely wins.  Obama just has to take any two of those (three if one of those is Iowa) to win.  And Ohio has been leaning pretty heavily for Obama, with Iowa, Virginia, and Colorado all also favoring Obama:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/author/nate-silver/

Demographics are really fucking up the Republican path to 270.  Ten years ago Pennsylvania was an actual swing state, and states like Virginia and North Carolina were solid red.   Because of increasing urbanization both Virginia and North Carolina are now winnable by Democrats, and former swing states like Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico are becoming more and more blue due to the increase in Latino voters.  New Mexico is no longer a swing state, and it's arguable the same has happened to Nevada (they don't get polled all that often).  It won't be long before Colorado isn't a swing state and Arizona goes from red to purple.

I'd imagine Texas will be pretty purple in the next 10-15 years as well, barring a major (and seemingly necessary) shift in Republican politics.

A) Your feel free to think this way, but it's simply not true.  If it was true we wouldn't be divided so regionally when it comes to politics.  The reasons Americans support the things they do is american culture.

For example, people in the US don't like government run healthcare, because they don't like healthcare rationing, which is a halmark of every government healthcare system.  It's how the prices stay down.

B) As for that congressman and lobbyiest article.  I'm guessing it came from a reporter or source who COMPLETELY MADE IT UP.

There is literally no other legitamite explination for such a conversation to go on, let alone infront of a news reporter... and if it did, they would of published said persons name and had a career making story.  The fact that you can't find it on the interenet more or less proves it's fake.

C)  Politicians don't always vote in the best interest of their consituents because we live in a democracy.  Congressmen more often then not adopt most of the stances of the people they represent.  75% of the time If people DON'T want to do something you'd see as better, it's simply because they don't want to do it.  Not because they're ignorant of other options or just aren't informed.   For the things you mentioned I could name a number of reasons the public thinks the costs outway the advantages.  I don't agree with them, but there are plenty of persuasive reasons.

They just have a different opinion on what they see as best.

Popularity follows position changes, not vice versa... whenever public policy shifts, so to will politician positions... no the other way around.

Though often times public sentiment makes it seem otherwise.

The rest of that time is generally just issues the general populace doesn't care that much about one way or another or in general deal making.  You need to vote for things important to other senators to get your stuff passed.

Yeah, of course they would. If they think it's racist to need a government ID to participate in a government election, there's no way they'd stand for anything like what I proposed.

I don't think I've seen a mechanism that lets you just pick to vote a straight ticket like that, but if you mean that the ballot should not indicate what party a candidate represents, I've been in favor of that for a long time.

It's not racist, it's classist. It's a fairly open and shut case, even if state courts seem to be supporting it.

It's not racist, it's classist. It's a fairly open and shut case, even if state courts seem to be supporting it.