Yes. Voting has no impact on election results. I hope we still haven't descended that far. Although with no paper trail available for votes recorded on electronic voting machines, I do wonder.

When you only have two political parties, it's easy to ignore issues and turn elections into an "us versus them" competition.

Obvious tag still holding out for Ron Paul?

Unfortunately, most voters feel like Cubs fans.

But RON PAUL

The whole thing is about the illusion of control over the system. As if it ultimately makes much difference which Republicrat claws their way into office.

Really want to shake things up? Don't vote Republicrat.

Look at pretty much everything in America today, how long do you really think it's going to be before the entire election process is either a reality show or a big game on a Sunday that everyone can root for ?

The political headlines on fark just prove it every single day, and it's not unique here.

UNC_Samurai:When you only have two political parties, it's easy to ignore issues and turn elections into an "us versus them" competition.

that's why I love voting third party sometimes... it's like going to a Yankees/ Red Socks game and cheering for the Capitals. It might not make much sense at the time, but dammit... you like that group and you'll cheer/ vote as you damn well feel

clgrin:that's why I love voting third party sometimes... it's like going to a Yankees/ Red Socks game and cheering for the Capitals. It might not make much sense at the time, but dammit... you like that group and you'll cheer/ vote as you damn well feel

How about just not attending the shiatty game? Nothing that happens on the field changes anything outside the stadium that much, and the ticket fees are astronomically high.


Of course, you have to buy the tickets anyway. I wish I could opt out of going to the game, opt out of paying the ticket price, but still be allowed to hang out with my buddies outside the stadium.

Paulistinian:clgrin:that's why I love voting third party sometimes... it's like going to a Yankees/ Red Socks game and cheering for the Capitals. It might not make much sense at the time, but dammit... you like that group and you'll cheer/ vote as you damn well feel

How about just not attending the shiatty game? Nothing that happens on the field changes anything outside the stadium that much, and the ticket fees are astronomically high.


Of course, you have to buy the tickets anyway. I wish I could opt out of going to the game, opt out of paying the ticket price, but still be allowed to hang out with my buddies outside the stadium.

okay... in the terms of our metaphor, is this the "I'll show them by not voting" strategy... because honestly your just making it easier for the people that benefit from the moronic system to prosper

Churchill2004:The whole thing is about the illusion of control over the system. As if it ultimately makes much difference which Republicrat claws their way into office.

Really want to shake things up? Don't vote Republicrat.

So vote for RON PAULBOB BARR?

And people are just realizing this now? Hell look at the political coverage and all the analysts and tell me it doesn't resembel a darn Half time Show where they look over the first halfs plays. To Political Insiders, it IS a sport and it IS about winning.

Is it so much of a stretch to see how or why some people will vote based on thier "Team" while the majority see's the spectator sport that thier government has beecome and becomes disillusioned and disenfranchised?

/Politicians and Lawyers, two least trusted professions
//Most politicians ARE Lawyers - coincodence?

Don't vote. It only encourages them.

Honestly, our party system is almost directly responsible for every major institutional problem in this country.

Both major parties have a stranglehold on the process, and despite conventional thinking on the issue, this stranglehold is a dangerously conservative force in our society; nothing changes in a way that doesn't directly benefit one or both of the two dominant parties.

Meaningful democracy simply can't coalesce in this country while the two-party system holds the reins in a way that they can prevent any and all honest attempts at fair electoral reform.

Your vote means less every year, but some people take that to mean they shouldn't vote at all. That's absolutely retarded. If you're fed up with party politics, get involved locally. Do everything you can to build a support base around local independents and third parties, 'cause we're not going to have real change unless it starts with the grass roots.

If you're not voting, all of these prevarications about why you're not are just excuses for your own laziness. If you really think there's a problem, sitting on ass is pretty much the worst thing you could do.

If you're not voting AND you're not out there agitating for change, yet you're still complaining, you're the other major problem with America's political culture.

clgrin:Paulistinian:clgrin:that's why I love voting third party sometimes... it's like going to a Yankees/ Red Socks game and cheering for the Capitals. It might not make much sense at the time, but dammit... you like that group and you'll cheer/ vote as you damn well feel

How about just not attending the shiatty game? Nothing that happens on the field changes anything outside the stadium that much, and the ticket fees are astronomically high.


Of course, you have to buy the tickets anyway. I wish I could opt out of going to the game, opt out of paying the ticket price, but still be allowed to hang out with my buddies outside the stadium.

okay... in the terms of our metaphor, is this the "I'll show them by not voting" strategy... because honestly your just making it easier for the people that benefit from the moronic system to prosper

Exactly. Jeebus, some of you are stupid. I've never wanted to say, "Stop biatching, do something about it or move to a different country" more badly than I do right now.

Best bet in having a say is being a technician for DieBold!

Yes, I was there, but you're wrong, subby; it did count.

/FL 2000
//suck it, non-voters

Churchill2004:The whole thing is about the illusion of control over the system. As if it ultimately makes much difference which Republicrat claws their way into office.

Really want to shake things up? Don't vote Republicrat.

I hate this bs line of reasoning. Are you actually going to sit there and tell me that Al Gore would have responded to everything that has happened over the last 8 years with exactly the same results? Absolutely stupid.

RocketVat:I hate this bs line of reasoning. Are you actually going to sit there and tell me that Al Gore would have responded to everything that has happened over the last 8 years with exactly the same results? Absolutely stupid.

I don't necessarily agree with Churchill2004 on this, but Al Gore is also a Republicrat. Just saying.

Well theres no happy answer.
A system where everyone has a say, when theres several hundred million people involved, is one where your individual say does not mean a whole lot. There will always be distrust when the machine has grown so large that no one can monitor it all.
Of course that also makes it difficult for a handful of people to screw the whole thing over.

The real problem in the American system its a lack of attention paid to the local politicians. Its where third party options flounder and alot of wierdness happens.
Yes the president is important, but there are several hundred other people on that hill that no one seems to care about until things get out of hand.

I think many of our complaints would be solved if we held the state and senate more responsible. They've been getting a free ride by blaming bush for all their ills... but theres a realistic limit to what a president can control.

way south:The real problem in the American system its a lack of attention paid to the local politicians. Its where third party options flounder and alot of wierdness happens.
Yes the president is important, but there are several hundred other people on that hill that no one seems to care about until things get out of hand.

I think many of our complaints would be solved if we held the state and senate more responsible. They've been getting a free ride by blaming bush for all their ills... but theres a realistic limit to what a president can control.

The biggest problem, to me, is that there is close to ZERO coverage of local and state politics on television, and the situation on the internet isn't any better. Comprehensive coverage of local and state politics simply isn't profitable. Puppy and kitten stories and reporting on street crime and car chases are.

Until that changes, general apathy towards local and state politics is just going to get worse.

Um......no.

The whole politics is sports analogy is pretty farking stupid.

1. You DO effect the outcome
2. The outcome has a direct effect on you
3. Sports players are held to a higher standard than politicans
4. Most of the time when some biatches about the "your team/my team mentality" its because their "team" is losing
5. It's stupid

log_jammin:Um......no.

The whole politics is sports analogy is pretty farking stupid.

1. You DO effect the outcome
2. The outcome has a direct effect on you
3. Sports players are held to a higher standard than politicans
4. Most of the time when some biatches about the "your team/my team mentality" its because their "team" is losing
5. It's stupid

plushjuan

clgrin:it's like going to a Yankees/ Red Socks game and cheering for the Capitals. It might not make much sense at the time, but dammit... you like that group and you'll cheer/ vote as you damn well feel

Well, stop that. Go to a Sox/Yanks game, and cheer for the Tampa Bay Rays.

Cheer for someone who might just make a difference in the race- let your voice be heard. Even if it means being rejected, even if it means wearing teal... support the club doing things the right way.

Who knows? One day, they might just be in first.

More like sports in that once they decide they're going to be for someone they immediately turn to bashing everyone else and anyone who dares question their own chosen one.

GAT_00:So vote for RON PAUL BOB BARR?

Or Nader, or whoever else might float your boat. They'll be a total of six candidates on enough ballots to be able to win 270 Electoral Votes.

NYZooMan:More like sports in that once they decide they're going to be for someone they immediately turn to bashing everyone else and anyone who dares question their own chosen one.

Or that they don't really like anyone, they just know that they really hate one team.

RocketVat:Are you actually going to sit there and tell me that Al Gore would have responded to everything that has happened over the last 8 years with exactly the same results? Absolutely stupid.

The same? No. 75% as bad? Yes.

- 9/11 - Gore wouldn't have prevented it.
- Afghanistan - I do believe Gore would finished the job.
- Iraq - Wouldn't have happened.
- Katrina - The only difference would have been no Kanye West moment.
- Patriot Act - Hell yes.
- 2005 Bankruptcy Act - Hell yes.
- FISA - Hell yes.
- Subprime mortgage crisis - Hell yes.
- Federal prosecutor firing scandal - Clinton fired all the Republican prosecutors when he took office. No reason to think Gore wouldn't have done the same.
- Walter Reed - It didn't just suddenly become a shiathole after Dubya took over. So that's a yes.


Anything else?

Stop voting for Republican Lite. It's never going to get better until people start voting for third party candidates.

Politics is a market, not a sport, and we have a duopoly.

This is what I hate about politics. You can't just make blanket statements about shiat and try to fit everything under that sheet. But everybody tries.

Tex Colorado the Arizona Assassin:- 9/11 - Gore wouldn't have prevented it.
- Afghanistan - I do believe Gore would finished the job.
- Iraq - Wouldn't have happened.

Agreed.

- Katrina - The only difference would have been no Kanye West moment.

I don't know if this is true. Katrina still would have hit, but if we hadn't had a batshiat president and his corrupt wing specifically telling people NOT to worry about the levies and that it would all be fine, things might have gone differently. Also, I'm not saying Gore is a saint, but he hasn't the same reputation of putting blatantly unqualified people in prominent positions of power just to return political favors--had someone else besides Brown been in charge, things would have been different. And the Kayne West thing still could have happened...

- Patriot Act - Hell yes.

I very much doubt it. While we might have had something that filled the same function, it was the administration who shoved fear down people's throats. We were shocked about 911, and then pissed, but it was Bush and crew that made us scared.

- 2005 Bankruptcy Act - Hell yes.
- FISA - Hell yes.
- Subprime mortgage crisis - Hell yes.

Agreed, in all probability.

- Federal prosecutor firing scandal - Clinton fired all the Republican prosecutors when he took office. No reason to think Gore wouldn't have done the same.

You completely don't get the situation, do you. Every president fires prosecutors when they take office. NO president has ever fired prosecutes in the middle of a term for refusing to do illegal or unethical activity. This wouldn't even be on the map.

- Walter Reed - It didn't just suddenly become a shiathole after Dubya took over. So that's a yes.

Probably agreed. But we might have had better reaction time (applies to a lot of this)

UNC_Samurai 2008-07-05 06:31:31 PM When you only have two political parties, it's easy to ignore issues and turn elections into an "us versus them" competition.
=============

Not to mention that the issues really don't matter. We got into a nice conversation in government class a few years back.

The best solution is 3 or 4 parties. But democrats and republicans have a stranglehold on the election process and make it damn near impossible for anyone else to get on the ballot.

Obama is an extra terrestrial black nationalist terrorist.

McCain rules.

/biatches

Atillathepun:Unfortunately, most voters feel like Cubs fans.

Amen to that brother...

Benjamin the Rogue:Atillathepun:Unfortunately, most voters feel like Cubs fans.

Amen to that brother...

So are Florida voters in 2000 like Steve Bartman?

I think the entire country should climb onto a big log and shoot down a mountain with 50lb. cheese wheels raining down mercilessly. Those left alive should use the limbs of the weak to construct the tallest "tower of freedom" and claim the presidency. VP should go to the survivor with the highest cheddar to human ratio.

Rooting for your teamprotesting probably doesn't affect the outcome much, but people can say 'I was there' "

I have a theory (pipe dream) that if we were to abandon the electoral college, in favor of a popular vote, that more people would vote.

Why? For example; I'm debating whether voting is worth it this election... Living in Texas, there is exactly no chance that Obama will win the state. None. "Why bother?" I ask myself. This principle can be applied to a good number of states for either party.

But, instead, if my vote were to go to an overall count, it might make some people feel like it has more of an impact.

Unpatriotic? Probably... but this country has let me down a lot lately.

Churchill2004:The whole thing is about the illusion of control over the system. As if it ultimately makes much difference which Republicrat claws their way into office.

Really want to shake things up? Don't vote Republicrat.

Michael Savage? Is that you?

demonwolf04:I have a theory (pipe dream) that if we were to abandon the electoral college, in favor of a popular vote, that more people would vote.

Quite possibly.

Why? For example; I'm debating whether voting is worth it this election... Living in Texas, there is exactly no chance that Obama will win the state. None. "Why bother?" I ask myself. This principle can be applied to a good number of states for either party.

True, but if you're an Obama supporter, we're seeing potential for a major shift this election. Maybe not Texas, but a lot more states are in play than they were last time around. Maybe it's just a one- or two-election anomaly, maybe it's actually a real shift. Who knows.

So Long Dental Plan:Michael Savage? Is that you?

Nah, he didn't say anything derogatory towards immigrants or Muslims or gays.

demonwolf04:I have a theory (pipe dream) that if we were to abandon the electoral college, in favor of a popular vote, that more people would vote.

Sweet, just what I wanted. NYC, Chicago, and LA to decide the fate of the United States and fark everyone over.

This country wasn't built upon popular control, we have checks and balances for a reason.

I totally agree with the 'rooting for your team' analogy for 50% of the country.

Look and Bush's & Carter's approval ratings: 20-25%.

Always 1 in 4 that agree with Democrats regardless.
Always 1 in 4 that agree with Republicans regardless.

demonwolf04:I have a theory (pipe dream) that if we were to abandon the electoral college, in favor of a popular vote, that more people would vote.


It would be a good thing for people who live in large cities.
Those who live in rural areas of the country... not so much.

Politicians are not stupid. They hold position by knowing who their votes come from. They would simply re-tune their message to appeal in the populous areas, get into office, and return to their old habits.
Only difference is now you have disenfranchised states. Ones that probably wont respond in kind ways to their new found lot in life.

So Long Dental Plan:Michael Savage? Is that you?

I am deeply insulted.

Besides, isn't Savage a Republican? If not, it's only because they're not advocating rounding up gays and atheists for extermination.

Churchill2004:So Long Dental Plan:Michael Savage? Is that you?

I am deeply insulted.

Besides, isn't Savage a Republican? If not, it's only because they're not advocating rounding up gays and atheists for extermination.

JKJK I was just being snarky because he always says the word "republicrat."

And he is a conservative, but I think he tries to distance himself from the republican party. I don't really listen to talk radio anymore. I had a boss that listened to it all day, but I don't work for him anymore. Those guys just talk all day and when someone calls in with a valid argument, they cut them off. F*ck a bunch of that malarky.

AR55:Sweet, just what I wanted. NYC, Chicago, and LA to decide the fate of the United States and fark everyone over.

This country wasn't built upon popular control, we have checks and balances for a reason.


According to wikipedia (easiest source in the quickest time), SoCal is 24 million, NYC 2 million, and Chicago 3 million.... which accounts for ~9.6% of the US population. (assuming all other things being equal) This means that they would provide 10% of the vote.

There are 538 electoral votes. California currently has 54 (just over 10%).
It probably wouldn't make as much of a difference as you think it would.

Also, the electoral system is neither a check nor a balance.

I'm voting for Obama in November because his SCOTUS appointments won't suck as bad (from my POV) as McCain's potential appointments.

I'm voting for Christine Gregoire in November because Democrat redistricting won't suck as bad as Republican redistricting, keeping Washington State 'blue' in terms of Congressional appointments.

Other than that, I am sooooo burned out by this Presidential election, so you guys bicker all you want. I'll be over here watching Sin City and eating Tony's Pizza.

/25
//Will vote, no matter what
///Obama '08
////Slashies and veto-proof majorities FTW

Atillathepun:Unfortunately, most voters feel like Cubs fans.

Maybe next election...