By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Democrats should heed this warning from Mass.

TheRealMafoo on 12 January 2010
Akvod said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Akvod said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Akvod said:
I thought Congress was supposed to be a representation of the people. The fact that we voted them in should mean that they are the people.

You would think. it's crazy when congress has an 18% approval rating or whatever (lowest in history), and when it comes time to vote, almost all of them get re-elected.

Then why don't people go and vote? Maybe we should make election day a national holiday?

IDK, I just turned 18, but I still don't think I'm a voter type. That's why I don't complain, since I didn't take any action.

I am not against the idea that voting be mandatory. It's like taxes. You pay taxes because it's your obligation. Voting as an obligation sounds good to me, provided you can write in anyone you want if you really don't want to vote for anyone on the ballot.

 

If you can write in anyone, then that'll be akin to having a shit load of voters, and split parties every single election (people voting for Clinton in the last election for example).

If you make it mandatory, then the Republicans may always lose, and people who aren't really interested and informed about the issues, candidates, etc will vote, probably based purely on the letter the candidates have next to their names.

I don't care if a Democrate or Republican wins, I just want whoever wins to do what the people who voted for them want. That's not happening here. If they knew everyone was going to the polls next election, things might be different.

I could be very wrong on that however.



Around the Network
Akvod on 12 January 2010
Rath said:
Akvod said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Akvod said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Akvod said:
I thought Congress was supposed to be a representation of the people. The fact that we voted them in should mean that they are the people.

You would think. it's crazy when congress has an 18% approval rating or whatever (lowest in history), and when it comes time to vote, almost all of them get re-elected.

Then why don't people go and vote? Maybe we should make election day a national holiday?

IDK, I just turned 18, but I still don't think I'm a voter type. That's why I don't complain, since I didn't take any action.

I am not against the idea that voting be mandatory. It's like taxes. You pay taxes because it's your obligation. Voting as an obligation sounds good to me, provided you can write in anyone you want if you really don't want to vote for anyone on the ballot.

 

If you can write in anyone, then that'll be akin to having a shit load of voters, and split parties every single election (people voting for Clinton in the last election for example).

If you make it mandatory, then the Republicans may always lose, and people who aren't really interested and informed about the issues, candidates, etc will vote, probably based purely on the letter the candidates have next to their names.

You just described current politics in damned near every democracy.

Should we go with a dictatorship like Socrates wanted? >.<

 

I see it like this:

Monarchy->Aristocracy->Democracy->Republic->Dictatorship

And then back again.

 



Rath on 12 January 2010
Akvod said:
Rath said:
Akvod said:

If you can write in anyone, then that'll be akin to having a shit load of voters, and split parties every single election (people voting for Clinton in the last election for example).

If you make it mandatory, then the Republicans may always lose, and people who aren't really interested and informed about the issues, candidates, etc will vote, probably based purely on the letter the candidates have next to their names.

You just described current politics in damned near every democracy.

Should we go with a dictatorship like Socrates wanted? >.<

 

I see it like this:

Monarchy->Aristocracy->Democracy->Republic->Dictatorship

And then back again.

 

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Democracy is broken, it's just a hell of a lot less broken than all the other forms of government that we've found. There is still a lot of work to be done in my opinion towards getting a form of democracy that takes into account the fact that voters are selfish, stupid and unable to see further than the next paycheck.




Akvod on 12 January 2010
Rath said:
Akvod said:
Rath said:
Akvod said:
 

If you can write in anyone, then that'll be akin to having a shit load of voters, and split parties every single election (people voting for Clinton in the last election for example).

If you make it mandatory, then the Republicans may always lose, and people who aren't really interested and informed about the issues, candidates, etc will vote, probably based purely on the letter the candidates have next to their names.

You just described current politics in damned near every democracy.

Should we go with a dictatorship like Socrates wanted? >.<

 

I see it like this:

Monarchy->Aristocracy->Democracy->Republic->Dictatorship

And then back again.

 

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Democracy is broken, it's just a hell of a lot less broken than all the other forms of government that we've found. There is still a lot of work to be done in my opinion towards getting a form of democracy that takes into account the fact that voters are selfish, stupid and unable to see further than the next paycheck.

I don't find it wrong that voters are selfish.

I thought the whole assumption that led to the checks and ballances is that all mankind is selfish, and unable to see further than their own needs, and that's why we need checks and balances?

 

IDK, the king is selfish, the people are selfish (and are taken advantage of by the public speakers), the public speakers are selfish, the representatives (senators) are selfish, etc.



bimmylee on 12 January 2010

I just thought of something: what if they took away the letters but kept just the names on the ballot? Wouldn't that force voters to stay informed and henceforth solve the problem? Or is there something I'm missing? I mean, if voters already know what the candidates stand for, then knowing what party they're from would be a given, thus unnecessary on the ballot. Voting straight-ticket would be much more difficult.



Check out my band, (the) Fracture Suit!!

http://www.myspace.com/fracturesuit

 

 

 

Have you been enslaved?

Around the Network
Sqrl on 12 January 2010
TheRealMafoo said:

So the most liberal of liberal states (Mass) has a Republican in the lead for replacing the late Sen. Kennedy in congress. The key reason? If he wins, that's 41 people to vote down the healthcare bill. He has openly said if he wins, it will mean the bill can be blocked, and he would do everything in his power to make that happen.

This is winning him the election.

In poll after poll, it's obvious that the American people do not want this bill. Even if they want socialized medicine in America, they don't want what this bill has in it.

Why is Congress not listening to the American people?

Add to this that Brown was able to raise $1,300,000 million in 24 hours on monday.  His target goal?  $500,000.

Add to that the recent polls showing that House dems who opposed the healthcare bill are doing fine in their races.

etc....

 

I find it hard to believe they haven't concluded the obvious - that people don't want the healthcare bill at the very least in its current form.
To Each Man, Responsibility
mrstickball on 12 January 2010
bimmylee said:
I just thought of something: what if they took away the letters but kept just the names on the ballot? Wouldn't that force voters to stay informed and henceforth solve the problem? Or is there something I'm missing? I mean, if voters already know what the candidates stand for, then knowing what party they're from would be a given, thus unnecessary on the ballot. Voting straight-ticket would be much more difficult.

In Ohio, we do that for the state supreme court. Its non-partisan, but judges do have a political affiliation.

Republicans have won handily in every election this decade.

I really like the non-partisan way we elect our state supreme court. Judges tend to get elected on their record and promises, and not political affiliation. I wish all elections were held that way. Remember: In the early days of the US, we had no political parties.

 

Would of been nice to not have parisan ballots, so America wouldn't have received:



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Rath on 13 January 2010

How does your state supreme court work? I find the system you use for the main supreme court to be very stupid.

Your supreme court is the most political I know of in any democracy. Your Judges are appointed by elected officials which is extremely silly. There isn't the seperation between the government and the judiciary which really is necessary.

Its the reason why your judges can be easily grouped into the liberal and conservative wings of the supreme court in my opinion.



burgerstein on 13 January 2010

I blame Ted Kennedy for dieing.



"Now, a fun game should always be easy to understand - you should be able to take one look at it and know what you have to do straight away. It should be so well constructed that you can tell at a glance what your goal is and, even if you don’t succeed, you’ll blame yourself rather than the game. Moreover, the people standing around watching the game have also got to be able to enjoy it." - Shiggy

A Koopa's Revenge II gameplay video

Gnizmo on 13 January 2010
TheRealMafoo said:

I am not against the idea that voting be mandatory. It's like taxes. You pay taxes because it's your obligation. Voting as an obligation sounds good to me, provided you can write in anyone you want if you really don't want to vote for anyone on the ballot.

 

I am for this iff two changes are made to the process as a whole. First, any election needs to be counted as a national holiday. People need the ability to take off of work to vote. Understandably you can't shut everything down. Still, most places would not be crippled by a couple extra days off a year, and facilities that must be 24/7 can make provisions for their workers.

Secondly, there must be an option to vote for no one. Writing in your own candidate is going the way of the dodo with electronic voting. The message I have often wanted to send is that I took time to show up, and found none of these people remotely acceptable. Toss them all out and start over. I feel it would do a lot of good in getting better candidates on the ballot.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229