If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fark)   Fark Politics Forum   (fark.com) divider line 2661
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

7837 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2007 at 5:32 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite   |  Watch    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



2661 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last
 
  2007-02-06 07:07:27 PM  
whidbey: How do you know that would be the case?

Huh?

If you've got 5 politicians running for office, and you think that one would get over 50% of the vote? With Perot, he got 19%, Bush got 37% and Clinton got 43% in 1992 & won with - LESS votes than W got in 2000.


.... and that's with just three people in the race.
 
  2007-02-06 07:08:09 PM  
This is boring. We're not allowed to call anyone an uneducated retard in here.
 
  2007-02-06 07:12:01 PM  
Give it a try, clifton. You might actually find it refreshing.
 
  2007-02-06 07:13:50 PM  
the_gospel_of_thomas: Give it a try, clifton. You might actually find it refreshing.

Heh yeah, that will happen.
 
  2007-02-06 07:17:13 PM  
whidbey

You can't just say "vote for third parties". Well, you can, but it won't happen, at least not consistently. The U.S. system of government and specifically, the majoritarian method of electing people, is set up to favor a two party system.

3rd parties have existed in our nation's history, but the movements are brief and fizzle quickly because the other two parties adjust to usurp their voting demographic.

To that end, though, they're effective in forcing the controlling parties to change.

If you want a more long-lasting 3rd part movement, we need to move to electing by plurality. For instance, I'm in Missouri, and we have 9 reps (I think). In a plural system, if the green party got roughly 11% of the vote statewide, they would get one of our seats. There wouldn't be districts that each seaprately elected in the person with the most votes. Run-off systems also work, but not very well. UK uses them, as well as Louisiana, but the end result is usually two parties with a minor delegation or 3rds (Liberal Democrats in UK).

So if we want to change, we need to change the constitution.

I suggest you read "Patterns of Democracy" by Arend Lijphart. It's textbook-y but a very good comprehensive overview of how institutions of government interact and affect voting patterns.
 
  2007-02-06 07:17:23 PM  
the_gospel_of_thomas: If you've got 5 politicians running for office, and you think that one would get over 50% of the vote? With Perot, he got 19%, Bush got 37% and Clinton got 43% in 1992 & won with - LESS votes than W got in 2000.

But you're talking about the popular vote.

Why wouldn't the Electoral College offset this? Wouldn't there still have to be a certain number of actual states they'd have to win?

Sorry, but I can't buy into a viable bi-ocracy rule...

There's no way that either of our parties addresses the needs of the majority. There has to be more diversity...
 
  2007-02-06 07:19:50 PM  
And thanks, Clonod. Will seek that title out. I have a lot of strong feelings about this topic, but confess I am something of a Know-Nothing regarding some of the reasons...
 
  2007-02-06 07:20:15 PM  
I really don't even understand the purpose of this thread. What is it telling us?

Is it telling us to not use personal attacks from now in, including other threads?

Is it telling us that from now on, only 7 days of comments will be listed?

I don't not understand.
 
  2007-02-06 07:24:46 PM  
moops: I really don't even understand the purpose of this thread. What is it telling us?

Is it telling us to not use personal attacks from now in, including other threads?

Is it telling us that from now on, only 7 days of comments will be listed?

I don't not understand.


I'm reading it as a thread that will never disappear, just displays the last seven days worth of comments.

Probably someone with sand in their vagina complained. Of course, Fark can't truly enforce the "no personal attacks" rule since site visits will plummet (goodbye ad revenue/TF subscriptions), so I guess as a compromise, this thread was created.
 
  2007-02-06 07:30:39 PM  
clifton: Fark can't truly enforce the "no personal attacks" rule since site visits will plummet (goodbye ad revenue/TF subscriptions),

You are mistaken. The site is more popular than ever, and enforcement could be anything from a timeout to a permaban.

And it's pretty much assumed that personal attacks shouldn't be allowed in any thread, much less a political forum where you can bet there will be more modding than usual...:)
 
  2007-02-06 07:31:00 PM  
mmmm.
tases like chicken.

I think this is supposed to be like the regular Fark forum, but with more lobbyists.
 
  2007-02-06 07:42:41 PM  
the_gospel_of_thomas: If you have 3, 4 or 5 political parties running for office, do you really want the office of the presidency to be determined by just 20% of the nations vote?

it's not far off from that right now. of all eligible voters, about 60% vote on a regular basis. bush's presidencies were both won with about 50% of that vote. that's a presidency determined by just 30% of the nation's vote.

a viable third, or fourth, or fifth, party might give that remaining 40% a reason to vote.

keeping in mind that the republicans are actually a third-party success story (used to be whigs/dems), i think the thing we'd need for a 3rd party or two at this point would be a serious system reform into something more like parliamentary democracy (a la canada or england), where you vote for a party and then seats in congress are awarded based on what percentage of the popular vote your party got. it'd be great, there'd be libertarians and greens involved in our discourse.

but yeah, a change like that is gonna happen on the other side of our next revolution.
 
  2007-02-06 07:42:41 PM  
Running a-puck: I for one would like there to be no political parties.

There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates or establishes politicial parties. Trying to ban political parties would be like trying to ban cliques or gangs; people will always band together to increase their strength.

We have two parties because we vote for people, not parties, and 51% of the vote in Congress is enough to enact legislation.
 
  2007-02-06 07:44:16 PM  
Clonod: If you want a more long-lasting 3rd part movement, we need to move to electing by plurality. For instance, I'm in Missouri, and we have 9 reps (I think). In a plural system, if the green party got roughly 11% of the vote statewide, they would get one of our seats. There wouldn't be districts that each seaprately elected in the person with the most votes. Run-off systems also work, but not very well. UK uses them, as well as Louisiana, but the end result is usually two parties with a minor delegation or 3rds (Liberal Democrats in UK).

shoulda just referenced that, i guess i wasn't doing my thread-home-work...or work-work...or at-work-not-working-stuff...
 
  2007-02-06 07:49:54 PM  
The other tabs got forums, so I'm guessing this is Random Mod Benevolence. In which case, thanks, mods.

And clifton, rules are pretty lax on Fark from what I see (most places I frequent are of the iron-fist variety, and Fark most certainly is not iron-fist), but mods do enforce rules when need be. And Drew, I daresay, is not exactly worried about the site's future regardless of what ruleset he uses.

Now then. Third parties. I'm a Greenie, I've said it a thousand times here, but make no mistake: I know Green candidates will lose. They will lose hard. Greens, and all other third parties, are most effective on the local level, where party is largely irrelevant.

So nationally, don't think of the third parties as potential winners. Think of them as lobbying groups that field candidates. The more you vote for their candidate, the more support is shown for that group's cause, and the more the main two have to shift towards those causes. And you keep voting for that group until the Dems or Reps take up whatever cause it is you have.

See, if you put the Greens on a plane with the Dems and Reps, of course they're going to be impotent. But if you put the Greens on a plane with the ACLU, NRA and AARP, that's something more their speed.
 
  2007-02-06 07:53:29 PM  
"Who am I? Why am I here?"
 
  2007-02-06 07:55:58 PM  
"Gridlock!"
 
  2007-02-06 08:01:59 PM  
 
  2007-02-06 08:02:13 PM  
screw the troops
there is no god
republicans and conservatives are racist bigots
terry schiavo was alive
abortionists are godless baby killers
my cat's in ur fridge eatin ur foodz
etc..
 
  2007-02-06 08:03:15 PM  
Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!1!
 
  2007-02-06 08:04:47 PM  
Gosling: I'm a Greenie, I've said it a thousand times here, but make no mistake: I know Green candidates will lose. They will lose hard. Greens, and all other third parties, are most effective on the local level, where party is largely irrelevant.

I agree with your last point. Still, if the disappointment and dismay continues with voting the same two lessers, I could see Green party membership rise in the next few years, particularly with some of the environmental issues we're hearing about. It could very well become a more mainstream issue.

Yes, I know I've got to read the damn book...;) It's just that I hate monopolies. I demand choice. I don't want the Republicrat party to go green. I would like both of them to become obsolete.
 
  2007-02-06 08:16:48 PM  
I want multiple parties. If our president is elected by 20% of the electorate, that is fine. It seems that this is happening anyways (read: low voter turnout)

I want to see the military downsized. We survived just fine for over 1/2 of our country's existance without a standing army. But politicians have figured out that constant warfare (or the threat thereof) helps keep the economy going...
 
  2007-02-06 08:21:58 PM  
*clears throat*

You swine. You vulgar little maggot. You worthless bag of filth. As we say in Texas, I'll bet you couldn't pour p!ss out of a boot with instructions on the heel. You are a canker. A sore that won't go away. I would rather kiss a lawyer than be seen with you. You're a putrescent mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk, a cad, a weasel. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a stench, a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon. You are a bleating foal, a curdled staggering mutant dwarf smeared richly with the effluvia and offal accompanying your alleged birth into this world. An insensate, blinking calf, meaningful to nobody, abandoned by the puke-drooling, giggling beasts who sired you and then killed themselves in recognition of what they had done. I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf at the very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut. Lepers avoid you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing. You are a weed, a fungus, the dregs of this earth. And did I mention you smell? Try to edit your responses of unnecessary material before attempting to impress us with your insight. The evidence that you are a nincompoop will still be available to readers, but they will be able to access it more rapidly. You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up, drive its beak into your brain, and upon finding it rancid set you loose to fly briefly before spattering the ocean rocks with the frothy pink shame of your ignoble blood. May you choke on the queasy, convulsing nausea of your own trite, foolish beliefs. You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid, nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You're a fool, an ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even sheep won't have sex with you. You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost in a land that reality forgot. And what meaning do you expect your delusionally self-important statements of unknowing, inexperienced opinion to have with us? What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert rat, spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the snake? You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a disease, you puerile, one-handed, slack-jawed, drooling, meatslapper. On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality of wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted. You are the source of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and sorrow wherever you go. You smarmy lagerlout git. You bloody woofter sod. Bugger off, pillock. You grotty wanking oik artless base-court apple-john. You clouted boggish foot-licking twit. You dankish clack-dish plonker. You gormless crook-pated tosser. You churlish boil-brained clotpole ponce. You cockered bum-bailey poofter. You craven dewberry pisshead cockup pratting naff. You gob-kissing gleeking flap-mouthed coxcomb. You dread-bolted fobbing beef-witted clapper-clawed flirt-gill. You are a fiend and a coward, and you have bad breath. You are degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just for knowing you exist. I despise everything about you, and I wish you would go away. I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid, so stupid it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in our universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics that we know. I'm sorry. I can't go on. This is an epiphany of stupid for me. After this, you may not hear from me again for a while. I don't have enough strength left to deride your ignorant questions and half baked comments about unimportant trivia, or any of the rest of this drivel. Duh. The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. I have snipped away most of what you wrote, because, well... it didn't really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative post was pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults among a load of babbling was hardly effective... Maybe later in life, after you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us "normal" people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. But we sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this world who find these things more difficult. If I had known, that this was your case then I would have never read your post. It just wouldn't have been "right". Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you.

Now that we've got that out of the way...
 
  2007-02-06 08:24:32 PM  
*reads FatherG's post*


.... looks like someone's got a case of the mondays ....
 
  2007-02-06 08:30:16 PM  
BefuddledThere is nothing in the Constitution that mandates or establishes politicial parties. Trying to ban political parties would be like trying to ban cliques or gangs; people will always band together to increase their strength.

Oh very true, I suppose what I am against is the idea of organized national political parties. You get a large group of people together and factions are invariably going to arise. But we can make it hard on them. We can go after the roots that feed these parasitic vines strangling the tree of liberty.

Why am I against them? Allow me to give you the words of someone far more eloquent than I on the subject.

George Washington:They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.


The parties put on a face (farce might be a better word) of representing the views of the people, but by their very nature their existence depends upon putting people of their party in office. To that goal almost anything is permissible, as long as you don't get caught. If you get caught you make the party look bad and the party might not do as well in the next elections, and if the dreaded other party were to take control of the wheels of government....

The two major parties have discovered that the way to life eternal is to polarize the American conversation, to make it a natural thing to think someone is lying when they say that they support party A on one issue and party B on another. We have seen this again and again even on the pages of fark. When someone or another states a viewpoint that does not necessarily agree with the standard viewpoint of the party to which they assigned themselves, what is the general reaction? From what I have seen (and I have been here far longer than my fark number would have you believe) that person is often attacked, as though it is inconceivable that someone could agree with only part of their party's line.

How often have you seen someone try to defend the indefensible, not from belief but because of who it was that did it or said it.

Hmm, this turned out to be a lot longer and a lot more ranty than it was going to be in the beginning.
 
  2007-02-06 08:34:41 PM  
idgi
 
  2007-02-06 08:34:50 PM  
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
 
  2007-02-06 08:35:13 PM  
It could very well become a more mainstream issue.

Far as I see, global warming's replacing immigration as the "it" issue of the day. Not all the way there yet, but give it a few weeks and it'll hit peak it-ness.
 
  2007-02-06 08:36:47 PM  
FatherG

Lady of Grace and Mercy. I am in awe, sir. May I ask if you wrote that yourself, and if not, from where did you get it.
 
  2007-02-06 08:42:06 PM  
web.ics.purdue.edu

nearly 3 years old, but it still sorta works. we've got b4 taken care of, right off the bat ;^)
 
  2007-02-06 08:44:27 PM  
regarding Iraq:

I really wish people would spend more time learning lessons from the Balkans and Nigeria.

I mean, Nigeria isn't all that bloody these days.
 
  2007-02-06 08:59:43 PM  
Mike? Are you still there? I have a question for you! Can you e-mail me?
 
  2007-02-06 09:11:49 PM  
the_gospel_of_thomas [TotalFark]
You want more than two? How do you propose we change our political and government structures to facilitate that?


Germany's got a pretty good system.
 
  2007-02-06 09:12:22 PM  
use Farkback
 
  2007-02-06 09:12:25 PM  
Well, I'm quite proud of the little 3rd party discussion I've fostered here today. Petty, I know, but a man must get simple pleasures from where he can.
 
  2007-02-06 09:18:17 PM  
Lord_Baull

I believe in the two-party system...
 
  2007-02-06 09:19:40 PM  
Clonod: There wouldn't be districts that each separately elected in the person with the most votes.

This would change other things: for example, Chicago would control all of Illinois's representatives, as opposed to however many they get by districting.
 
  2007-02-06 09:21:16 PM  
img59.imageshack.us

This thread needs more cute animal pictures.
 
  2007-02-06 09:23:42 PM  
Hey alright, I like this idea.

Will this thread stay up top indefinitely?
 
  2007-02-06 09:28:33 PM  
"Fark Politics" as in, politics on Fark? Or as in, "Yeah! Fark 'em all!"
 
  2007-02-06 09:28:51 PM  
If we put 10% of the money in to public education that we put in to war this country would be the greatest the world has ever known.
 
  2007-02-06 09:30:39 PM  
TheConvincingSavant: Hey alright, I like this idea.

Will this thread stay up top indefinitely?


Here's another idea: Instead of the article count posted on each "tab" next to the section name (Not News (120), Sports (123), Entertainment (151), etc), have a comment count for the section's individual comment thread, linking to that thread.
 
  2007-02-06 09:31:14 PM  
SwingingJohnson: If we put 10% of the money in to public education that we put in to war this country would be the greatest the world has ever known.

Try telling the zealous chickenhawk warmongers that...

I mean, what about that missing ten percent hole in the defense budget? My god!
 
  2007-02-06 09:34:56 PM  
i hope you get raped, twice

this is why we don't discuss things like this on the internet

/RvB, anyone?
 
  2007-02-06 09:35:16 PM  
SwingingJohnson If we put 10% of the money in to public education that we put in to war this country would be the greatest the world has ever known.

It's not just a matter of money, we would also have to change the perspective that all too many Americans have about knowledge and intelligence. As it stands now intelligence, knowledge, and education are not particularly valued by our society. For instance, how many 'star' scientists are there. How many 'star' athletes.
 
  2007-02-06 09:35:38 PM  

If we put 10% of the money in to public education that we put in to war this country would be the greatest the world has ever known.


That's communist.
 
  2007-02-06 09:50:01 PM  
FatherG, can i make that post my new fark name?
 
  2007-02-06 09:52:49 PM  
Can we get a Religious Flame War Civil Discussion Forum as well? =P
 
  2007-02-06 09:58:50 PM  
SwingingJohnson
If we put 10% of the money in to public education that we put in to war this country would be the greatest the world has ever known.


In 2004 (the latest year I could find figures for), the U.S. spent $475.5 billion on public schools (K-12) and another $200.1 billion on public colleges and universities. Private schools spent $35.7 billion (K-12) and $115.3 billion (college and university) respectively.

For 2007, the U.S. military budget is supposed to be $532.8 billion.
 
  2007-02-06 10:03:53 PM  
BTW, the previous figured for the DoD might not include Bush's latest request for a "surge" and other Iraq funds. I could have looked up 2004 figures to bring it in line with the ones I found on education, but I was too lazy. :)
 
Displayed 50 of 2661 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last


 
   Forgot password? Create an account to make comments
  Use HTML Buttons
If you can see this, something's wrong with your browser's CSS support.
 
Before posting, please take a minute to review our posting rules and our legal/privacy policy.
By posting, you agree to these terms.
Got questions about Fark? See our FAQ.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report