Author Topic: Vote(d) 2012 ... can't mediate the Ho Ho's  (Read 128790 times)

Offline bhu

  • Uncle Kittie
  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16306
  • Fnord bitches
    • View Profile
Re: Vote 2012 ... "surrey with the Fringe on top" edition.
« Reply #100 on: February 01, 2012, 05:39:12 PM »
Hence why so many people, except the ones in power of course, want to get rid of the two-party system.
Aside from the status quo, why are we stuck with it? I've heard there are benefits to it, but I don't know what they are.

The standard bullshit answer i get is that it narrows the field.  You don't want unqualified people running and supposedly the parties vetting candidates themselves quickly weeds out the trash. 

Yeah I'm not buying it either.  It reminds me of a paraphrasing of a more famous saying:

"Communism is the failed idea that if you give a thief the keys to power he'll reject his true nature and govern responsibly.  Capitalism is the failed idea that 2 thieves will steal less from you than one does."

Offline X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2001
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: Vote 2012 ... "surrey with the Fringe on top" edition.
« Reply #101 on: February 01, 2012, 06:02:24 PM »
Most people are stupid, so while it is bullshit it isn't unbelievable at all.

Ask someone if they want Coke or Pepsi, they'll answer with their favorite drink quickly.

Ask someone if they want Coke, Pepsi, or Mountain Dew and you'll still get a quick answer.

Ask someone what kind of soda do they want and it will likely take a bit to decide.

Political decisions are more meaningful than drinking ones, so the decision process takes longer.

If you were right, Independents would get more votes. It's that simple.

I'm not saying the system is good. I am saying that is why it is the way that it is.
Except it's not why it is the way it is.  Independents don't get more votes because of the feigned ideological opposition of the Democrats and Republicans.  The question doesn't become "Do I vote for a Democrat, or do I vote for a Green," it becomes "Do I vote for a Democrat, or do I throw away my vote on someone who will never get elected, and make it that much easier for a Republican to win?"  This assumes that said voter even knows what the hell the Green Party is, which is possible given the existence of that massive jackhole Ralph Nader, but do they know who's running on the Constitution Party ticket?  The Socialist Party ticket?

Why is it that two specific candidates get more name recognition than the rest?  Money.  Corporate media outlets are owned by people who support one party over the other, and the fact that you belong to the Democrats or Republicans automatically means your presidential candidate gets hundreds of millions (this year, billions) of dollars in contributions from the portion of the 1% that backs that party in that election year.  Therefore, they have all the money they need to drown out any TV/Newspaper/Internet ads put up by anyone else, assuming that anyone else even has the money to put one up in the first place.

Therefore, since the Democrats and the Republicans are the only two that have a realistic shot at winning, and because they play up this "OMG WE CAN'T LET THEM WIN!!!" faux outrage at each other, the choice is not Pepsi or Coca Cola.  The choice is Pepsi or getting kicked in the nuts.

Offline RobbyPants

  • Female rat ninja
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8326
    • View Profile
Re: Vote 2012 ... "surrey with the Fringe on top" edition.
« Reply #102 on: February 02, 2012, 08:18:28 AM »
Ask someone if they want Coke or Pepsi, they'll answer with their favorite drink quickly.

Ask someone if they want Coke, Pepsi, or Mountain Dew and you'll still get a quick answer.

Ask someone what kind of soda do they want and it will likely take a bit to decide.

Political decisions are more meaningful than drinking ones, so the decision process takes longer.
Well, luckily they have eight to ten months to mull it over.


the choice is not Pepsi or Coca Cola.  The choice is Pepsi or getting kicked in the nuts.
Ha! Best paraphrasing of the issue ever!

On a related note, this is probably a lot of why negative adds are so effective. As much as people hate it, I think they understand the idea of choosing the lesser of two evils. Just make the other guy look bad enough, and people will fall in line.
My creations

Please direct moderation-related PMs to Forum Staff.

Offline Hallack

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 415
  • With Jetpacks
    • View Profile
Re: Vote 2012 ... "surrey with the Fringe on top" edition.
« Reply #103 on: February 02, 2012, 12:01:42 PM »
Political decisions are more meaningful than drinking ones, so the decision process takes longer.

Well, luckily they have eight to ten months to mull it over.

But sadly most wont give it significant thought.

the choice is not Pepsi or Coca Cola.  The choice is Pepsi or getting kicked in the nuts.
Ha! Best paraphrasing of the issue ever!

I think it is usually closer to "Would you prefer you kick to the nuts to be with a boot or shoe?"

Offline X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2001
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: Vote 2012 ... "surrey with the Fringe on top" edition.
« Reply #104 on: February 02, 2012, 12:20:27 PM »
^While I personally agree, I was speaking from the perspective of the typical voter.

Offline Tiltowait

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 214
  • Werdna advances!
    • View Profile
Re: Vote 2012 ... "surrey with the Fringe on top" edition.
« Reply #105 on: February 03, 2012, 09:22:29 AM »
And now X-Codes, the million dollar question. Why is it throwing away your vote to vote for the Independent guy and not a hypothetical third party?

When you've answered that, you'll understand why there's only two.

As it is though as far as most are concerned there are only two choices and there would be even if there were actually many more than that. It's the same reason why the Tea Party quickly fell into line with the Republicans. All they were doing was taking votes away from them.

Offline X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2001
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: Vote 2012 ... "surrey with the Fringe on top" edition.
« Reply #106 on: February 03, 2012, 11:30:25 AM »
^ You are as disassociated with reality as the Tea Party.

It's not throwing away your vote to vote for a 3rd-party candidate, that's simply the perception being put on by the two major parties with their endless corporate cashflow.

Also, the Tea Party hasn't fallen in-line with the Republicans.  Why do you think the Republican primary is still a thing?  Those aren't mainstream Republicans voting for Gingrich, those are the fundies and bigots.

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
Re: Vote 2012 ... "surrey with the Fringe on top" edition.
« Reply #107 on: February 03, 2012, 12:12:55 PM »
It actually has beCOME the reality, because of the altered one presented by the two major parties.  The campaign to make the elections diparty, rather than polyparty, has led to the most a vote for a third party candidate doing being letting the OTHER party win.  Which elections has that happened in?  Where people who would normally vote democrat or republican vote for a 3rd party, splitting the vote?  So it ends up with a 49-40-11 split, rather than a 49-51, or something similar.

My point being, when only 10% of people will possibly vote for a third candidate, the two parties have successfully made it so that it is effectively a waste of a vote.  That candidate will never be voted in, the most your vote can do is help one of the two parties wil bigger.

DISCLAIMER: no, I do not like it.  I would much rather have a (true) poly-party system than a(n effectively)di-party system.
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2001
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: Vote 2012 ... "surrey with the Fringe on top" edition.
« Reply #108 on: February 03, 2012, 12:17:57 PM »
The fallacy in that argument is that a 49-40-11 split would almost certainly not have been a 49-51 split if the 3rd candidate wasn't present.  It's possible, to be sure, but not likely.  If you want an example of a recent case where it likely would not have happened, look at Clinton-Bush-Perot.

Offline StreamOfTheSky

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
Re: Vote 2012 ... "surrey with the Fringe on top" edition.
« Reply #109 on: February 03, 2012, 12:23:02 PM »
Little late, but just want to say how much bs it is that a big state like Florida is winner take all.  Like 2 weeks before the primary when I heard that, I already knew it'd basically just be Romney vs. Gingrich, cause for anyone else to try at all is a waste of money and time.

As for the 2 party system, it has no benefit at all, it didn't develop in order to be of benefit to the people.  Not even about decision paralysis.  It's just a result of the stupid way our voting works.  You only make one choice, and it's for the guy you "want" instead of...say, a way to eliminate the biggest crazy from the running (ie, whoever gets the least votes wins, and it becomes a measure of blocking out the wackos, encouraging moderates since the more in the middle you are, the less likely you are to draw a lot of voter wrath).

So, you end up with the 2 main party candidates.  Since their "base" largely determines the candidate, they often (on the Republican side, especially) being crazy fuckwits, since they were picked for pleasing extremist fringes more than being moderate.  There might be a 3rd party candidate who's more reasonable and moderate, but a vote for him is one less vote for the lesser of 2 evils, so you end up helping the guy you absolutely don't want to get in, get in.  The amount of money, name recognition, media time, etc... the two parties have is so massive that no 3rd party can ever hope to compete, and the main parties know they have this advantage, so no matter how fractured they get, they'll never split up, cause then they'd lose out on their monopoly.

TL;DR: Unless voting laws are changed (I like the idea of "give your vote to as many candidates as you want" with whoever gets the most total winning), we're stuck like this forever.

Offline darqueseid

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 593
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Vote 2012 ... "surrey with the Fringe on top" edition.
« Reply #110 on: February 03, 2012, 12:43:54 PM »
I agree that more viable parties could make our political system healthier, but that's not all we need to do. 
#1 we need to outlaw political ads. (all they are is propaganda and nobody likes them anyway)
#2 we need to reduce the amount of money going to campaigns in general there needs to be sane limits put on the amounts any one entity can donate to a political campaign (although without political ads money would be far less important anyway). 
#3 the amount of money paid to lobbyists needs to be reduced.  each interest group should only be allowed some small number of lobbyists.  I would set the number at the amount it would take to reasonably reach each member of governtment once.  AND the interests should all get the same number(if we allow lobbyists at all that is.. I'm not sold on thier usefulness anyway).

I think you'd find, if you brunt the effect of money in politics you'll get more viable candidates from a multitude of different parties that currently can't compete... And that would lead to healthier discourse, and a healthier democracy.



Offline X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2001
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: Vote 2012 ... "surrey with the Fringe on top" edition.
« Reply #111 on: February 03, 2012, 02:14:13 PM »
Political ads have a legitimate purpose in that they can let people know that there's an election going on, and that candidate A is for B, candidate C is for D, etc.  These super-pacs, however, absolutely must go.

Also, Buddy Romer has a funding plan that I like.  For all small-dollar contributions, the Federal government matches the contribution.  I think his exact numbers are for each donation $100 or less, the Government matches 50% of the donation, but a $101 donation gets no match whatsoever.  Combine that with getting rid of these obnoxious super-pacs and unlimited corporate/crazy zillionaire contributions and you've got a system that's significantly more credible.

As for lobbyists, they're really not that big of a problem themselves.  If you cut off corporate money to campaigns, you won't have officials that feel particularly beholden to the lobbyists.

Offline darqueseid

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 593
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Vote 2012 ... "surrey with the Fringe on top" edition.
« Reply #112 on: February 03, 2012, 03:05:54 PM »
I don't think Political ads are necessary anymore though, there's the internet, or there's the newsmedia to inform you that there's an election going on.  I wouldn't classify the candidates websites as advertisement, certainly not an advertisement impacted by money.  At best the Political ads should be strictly limited.  In this manner you are limiting the IMPACT that the money has, if not the money itself

it seems like we agree in principle though, that money in politics is the root of the evil.  And the corporate money+superpacs are way over the top. 

Offline altpersona

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2000
  • #78
    • View Profile
    • You are here
Re: Vote 2012 ... "surrey with the Fringe on top" edition.
« Reply #113 on: February 03, 2012, 03:52:40 PM »
lemme preface w/

its hard for me to talk politics w/ out calling everyone names and saying something i could get arrested for...

but,

i do like buddy romer a bit.

i wouldnt vote for him, never for a louisiana politician.. but as they go, i like him.

that 'like'  is relative.

i like him more than the others, but those are so little that it dosnt really register.
The goal of power is power. - 1984
We are not descended from fearful men. - Murrow
The Final Countdown is now stuck in your head.

Anim-manga still sux.

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
Re: Vote 2012 ... "surrey with the Fringe on top" edition.
« Reply #114 on: February 03, 2012, 11:32:15 PM »
The fallacy in that argument is that a 49-40-11 split would almost certainly not have been a 49-51 split if the 3rd candidate wasn't present.  It's possible, to be sure, but not likely.  If you want an example of a recent case where it likely would not have happened, look at Clinton-Bush-Perot.

I know that, I was just providing an example.  You can see though that my point is the vast majority of votes go to the two major parties, so they have managed to make it effectively di-party.  And in a hypothetical situation where a party member splits off and runs independently, you'll likely have the majority of votes for that candidate by people who would normally vote for the candidate's original party.  Since this is almost never a significant amount it ends up looking like they're taking votes away from their base party.
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline skydragonknight

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2660
    • View Profile
Re: Vote 2012 ... "surrey with the Fringe on top" edition.
« Reply #115 on: February 04, 2012, 02:05:24 AM »
I agree that more viable parties could make our political system healthier, but that's not all we need to do. 
#1 we need to outlaw political ads. (all they are is propaganda and nobody likes them anyway)
#2 we need to reduce the amount of money going to campaigns in general there needs to be sane limits put on the amounts any one entity can donate to a political campaign (although without political ads money would be far less important anyway). 
#3 the amount of money paid to lobbyists needs to be reduced.  each interest group should only be allowed some small number of lobbyists.  I would set the number at the amount it would take to reasonably reach each member of governtment once.  AND the interests should all get the same number(if we allow lobbyists at all that is.. I'm not sold on thier usefulness anyway).

I think you'd find, if you brunt the effect of money in politics you'll get more viable candidates from a multitude of different parties that currently can't compete... And that would lead to healthier discourse, and a healthier democracy.

For #1, I don't think they should be outlawed necessarily, but the opponent should be able to ask to take down an attack ad if he can show that it has no factual basis. This is called slander, and should not be tolerated. It only warps perceptions rather than informs people allowing them to create their own perception.

For #2, there was a limit a few years ago...and then came a piece of legislature that removed it. I was very angry at the time but was more shocked at how little attention it was getting in the mainstream media and the general lack of public outrage. It was a Bill designed to empower corruption.

For #3, I think lobbyists need to be banned from any kickbacks they offer. No expensive dinners, tickets to the superbowl, etc. Only promises of support in future campaigns (with sane limits) would be okay, since anyone can donate to anyone's campaign anyway.
Hmm.

Offline awaken_D_M_golem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7639
  • classique style , invisible tail
    • View Profile
Re: Vote 2012 ... "surrey with the Fringe on top" edition.
« Reply #116 on: February 04, 2012, 03:03:41 PM »
The money side has gotten weirder with
that Citizens United supreme court ruling.

I think Romney's "un"-affiliated super PAC
outspent Newt's by about 6 to 1, in Florida.
Hence the 10+ % shift in the weeks with
all that money being blown. It's not like Mitt
or Newt's issue positions or personal disposition
were unknowns in South Carolina (or earlier).

Ron Paul seems to agree with X-codes ...
well ... maybe a premise or two are different  ;)
about trying to be a 3rd partier again. Although
I think his motives are more toward helping
Rand Paul run next time.
Your codpiece is a mimic.

Offline darqueseid

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 593
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Vote 2012 ... "surrey with the Fringe on top" edition.
« Reply #117 on: February 06, 2012, 11:05:38 AM »
Ron Paul is terrible for america though.  Here's why:

1.Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, kept the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens. These bills: H.R.3863, H.R.5909, H.J.RES.46, and H.J.RES.42.

2.Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights. Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal Roe v. Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to “To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” Please see these bills: H.R.2597 and H.R.392

3.Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class. He supports abolishing the Federal minimum wage, has twice introduced legislation to repeal OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Act and would deal devastating blows to Social Security including repealing the act that makes it mandatory for employees of nonprofits, to make “coverage completely optional for both present and future workers”, and would “freeze benefit levels”. He has also twice sponsored legislation seeking to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act which among other things provide that contractors for the federal government must provide the prevailing wage and prohibits corporate “kick backs.” Here are the related bills: H.R.2030, H.R.4604, H.R.736, and H.R.2720

4.Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes. He has repeatedly submitted amendments to the tax code that would get rid of the estate and gift taxes, tax all earners at 10%, disallow income tax credits to individuals who are not corporations, repeal the elderly tax credit, child care credit, earned income credit, and other common credits for working class citizens. Bill: H.R.05484 (Summary)

5.Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment.  He supports off shore drilling, building more oil refineries, mining on federal lands, no taxes on the production of fuel, and would stop conservation efforts that could be a “Federal obstacle” to building and maintaining refineries. He has also sought to amend the Clean Air Act, repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to “restrict the jurisdiction of the United States over the discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into waters”.  Check these bills: H.R.2504, H.R.7079, H.R.7245, H.R.2415, H.R.393, H.R.4639, H.R.5293, and H.R.6936

6. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations. Ron Paul supported withdrawing the US from the UN, when that didn't happen he fought to  have the US withdrawn from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organizations. He has introduced legislation to keep the US from giving any funds to the UN. He also submitted that the US funds should not be used in any UN peacekeeping mission or any UN program at all. He has sponsored a bill calling for us to “terminate all participation by the United States in the United Nations, and to remove all privileges, exemptions, and immunities of the United Nations.”Ron Paul twice supported stopping the destruction of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States. He also would continue with Bush’s plan of ignoring international laws by maintaining an insistence that the International Criminal Court does not apply to the US, despite President Clinton’s signature on the original treaty. The International Criminal Court is used for, among other things, prosecution of war crimes. Please see the following bills: H.R.3891, H.AMDT.191, H.AMDT.190, H.R.3769, H.R.1665, H.CON.RES.23, and H.R.1154

7.Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens. Paul was an original co sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House in 2004. Among other things this discriminatory piece of legislation placed a prohibition on the recognition of a same sex marriage across state borders. He said in 2004 that if he was in the Texas legislature he would not allow judges to come up with “new definitions” of marriage. Paul is a very religious conservative and though he is careful with his words his record shows that he is not a supporter of same sex marriage. In 1980 he introduced a particularly bigoted bill entitled “A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 A direct quote from the legislation “Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.”

8. Ron Paul has an obsession with guns. One of Paul’s loudest gripes is that the second amendment of the constitution is being eroded.  He advocates for there to be no restrictions on personal ownership of semi-automatic weaponry or large capacity ammunition feeding devices, would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act (because we all know our schools need more guns), wants guns to be allowed in our National Parks, and repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968.  In fact, the gun control act was put into place after the assassinations of JFK, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy, with huge bi-partisan support.  The constitution does not say anyone can own any weapon they want without limit (he really DOES want to give x-codes a tank...). Please see the following bills: H.R.2424, H.R.1897, H.R.1096, H.R.407, H.R.1147, and H.R.3892.  (he REALLY DOES want to give x-codes a tank...)

9.Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system. Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would keep the Federal Government “from planning, developing, implementing, or administering any national teacher test or method of certification and from withholding funds from States or local educational agencies that fail to adopt a specific method of teacher certification.” In a separate piece of legislation he sought to “prohibit the payment of Federal Education assistance in States which require the licensing or certification of private schools or private school teachers.”  Remember his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955? It “Forbids any court of the United States from requiring the attendance at a particular school of any student because of race, color, creed, or sex.”  So much for Brown Vs. Board of Education. If this bill were to pass, schools would no longer be required to comply and the schools would go back to segregation based on their locations. Thats the future for U.S. education, teachers with no certification, in schools that are allowed to discriminate on the basis of race and private schools will be no better.

10.Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state. This reason is probably behind every other thing that I disagree with in regards to Paul’s positions. Ron Paul is among those who believes that there is a war on religion, he stated “Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view.”  He would support “alternative views” of evolution taught in public schools (i.e. Intelligent Design). One of the things also outlined in his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 Besides hating the gays, he takes a very religious stance on many other things.

Don't let Ron Paul fool you he talks a good game, but there's alot of bad mixed in with very little good.

Offline altpersona

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2000
  • #78
    • View Profile
    • You are here
Re: Vote 2012 ... "surrey with the Fringe on top" edition.
« Reply #118 on: February 06, 2012, 12:24:41 PM »
i nearly completely agree w/ you.

Ron Paul is terrible.

you should add, he created Rand Paul

and remove #8, guns are good. guns keep us free from tyranny. and are fun.
The goal of power is power. - 1984
We are not descended from fearful men. - Murrow
The Final Countdown is now stuck in your head.

Anim-manga still sux.

Offline darqueseid

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 593
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Vote 2012 ... "surrey with the Fringe on top" edition.
« Reply #119 on: February 06, 2012, 12:55:54 PM »
Lol I should just replace #8 with "created Rand Paul"  then?

No I agree, Gun control has probably gone a bit too far, but I don't think ordinary people need to be owning machine guns and the ilk, Nor should they be bringing them to schools or public buildings.   Its hard to find a middle ground there, but I think reasonable restrictions on gun ownership is okay

-the constitution says we have a "right to keep and bear arms", but it doesn't say without restriction. 

-The having to have a liscense to carry one anyWHERE in just about ANY state is where its gone too far.  It amounts to a tax on the rights of gun owners, which is wrong...