He was also in office when osama bin laden was assassinated, thats gotta help too.
Printable View
He was also in office when osama bin laden was assassinated, thats gotta help too.
Depends. The typical political memory of Americans doesn't go back farther than 6 months ago. If I remember correctly from reading the book "Hardball", one of the main ideas from chapter 4 or something was that your constituents are always asking "What have you done for me lately?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Sad, but true. Block voting is the bane of the democratic process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I can think of a few other things that are worse for the democratic process.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Really? Voting on race instead of issues seems the quickest path to banana republic status.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Voting on race has meant that the other 43 presidents have all been white. (Well that's not entirely true, by sheer force of numbers, most candidates would be white)
Obama may draw 95% of the Black vote, but Blacks vote Democrat by an overwhelming majority anyway. (80%?) Obama attract but a handful more, and probably he mobilises the Black vote too. I assume much of this is offset by non-Blacks not voting for a Black candidate.
No, voting for economically ignorant candidates is the quickest path to banana republic status.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Citizens vote on prejudices all the time and prejudices have determined a lot of previous presidential candidates, none of which ended up turning America into a 3rd world country because the candidates presented by the parties are for the most part intelligent people in the first place.
Most people never would have voted a Catholic into office until Kennedy made his brilliant PR move during his campaign. And there are still many people who would never vote for someone just because they are black (AKA the crazy birthers).
People voting off of prejudices and single issues and blocks are actually very much a part of the democratic process because most people are naturally prejudiced at something or other. No one escapes a bias completely.
Now, onto the stuff that are worse for the democratic process. Private, unregulated contributions are worse for the democratic process because not all wealth is distributed evenly in a capitalist society. Not that that is bad thing, but by introducing a system that establishes people who have more than others in terms of wealth because of their ability you give more political power to those with the wealth in the system than those who don't have much wealth. And that is inherently anti democratic because the purpose of a fundamentally democratic system is that all people's opinions are on the same level and igven the same opportunities.
Public funding would do more to save the American democratic system than looking down on people because they are human.
In a healthy democracy, factions should develop around relevant public policy issues (taxes, size & scope of government, etc.). Block voting degrades that process into a form of base tribalism and, in effect, pushes the selection process further away from the public and into closed-door party halls. (Now, an argument can be made that parties know what's better for the people than the people themselves, and some European and other nations have implemented systems based partially on that concept, but it has never really been the American way.)
In any event, the devastating effects of that process can be seen in cities all across America. What were once some of America's most vibrant, clean, and safe cities have been turned into festering cesspools of human filth because black people voted for the black Democratic candidate regardless of positions, qualifications, or records. From Detroit to Memphis to our nation's own capitol, the plague has gutted the country and made urban living a non-starter for anyone with the choice to live elsewhere. Witness Mayor Marion Barry of Washington, who was convicted of snorting crack cocaine with hookers and sentenced to 6 months in prison, only to re-elected three times after he got out.
These effects haven't yet translated into national politics in a significant way because non-white minorities have traditionally constituted a tiny percentage of the voting electorate, although that will soon change. However, we have seen similar situations throughout our nation's history when regionalism - another form of tribalism - developed into a strong motivator for the voting public - the worst of which would of course be the Civil War. People voting for peripheral issues instead relevant ones has never served this nation or any other well.
Finally, perhaps the largest irony surrounding block voting is that it rarely helps the people who practice it. It hasn't worked for America's black population and it didn't work for the South - be it in the 19th Century or in the '60s with Wallace.
I found this comment particularly interesting/disingenuous. If I announced that I will be voting for President Obama's presumably white (barring an Allan West upset, which would be awesome) opponent because he will be white and Obama is black, you wouldn't look down on me at all? You wouldn't make any personal judgments?Quote:
Originally Posted by ACIN
Your idea of a healthy democracy is too separated from what reality actually is. Not everyone is informed, rational or even reasonable. People are people in the more negative sense and that won't change any time soon. Part of the goal of the American style of government is specifically to counter act these types of tribalism that some of the Founding Father's recognized within political voters. There will never be a tribe big enough to get what they want because the power is broken up and the opposition is not powerless as a minority.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
You can list examples of block voting ruining specific regions but that doesn't help your argument which is fundamentally that people should change not our system. People won't change, you need a system to work with that. Those areas that fell due to massive uninformed block voting did not have the proper system set up to counter such acts of tribalism, and it should have. If it did, then it was a case that the public got what they wanted, and reaped the consequences from it. Democracy does not inherently provide better choice from other styles, it is simply one of more humane styles of choosing leadership.
EDIT: As an example take California. We have a Proposition system styled off of direct democracy where the public can change the law or the constitution themselves if a majority want it that way. This has made the fiscal situation so much impossible in California. Tons of money is mandated by public propositions to go to specific things and cannot be shifted around or have its funding reduced. Same goes when it comes to taxes. Now you need a 2/3rd majority to raise taxes. Now, you can say what you want about big government but practically taking away the ability to raise taxes period, is a stupid and shortsighted idea. Now, are you going to tell me that instead of scrapping this abused system that the public should be more responsible when it comes to Propositions? Even if on a personal level I agree with you (actually I do, I hate how people vote, if they do at all) the impracticality of asking all of California to put more thought into their vote rather than simply altering the Proposition system makes it an indefensible position imo.
I think we have had the Civil War conversation already, but suffice it to say I think you are wrong when it comes to the Civil War and the motivations behind both sides in it.
Also you two examples of bad black block voting are actually examples of good block voting. In both the Reconstruction Era and the 1960s, blacks for the most part improved their standard of living and did improve their communities through massive block voting. Black communities were hit hard by Jim Crow laws preventing their participation after Reconstruction and blacks were no doubt better off by the late 1960s than they were in the late 1950s.
Well I personally would think you are an idiot if you did that. But I would be more concerned if you had the ability to buy your candidate's way into the position than what your candidate stood for or why you stand for him. Your opinion is your opinion, no matter how moronic it is, and it should get an equal say than the average person's voice, no more, no less. That is part of the ideals of America.Quote:
I found this comment particularly interesting/disingenuous. If I announced that I will be voting for President Obama's presumably white (barring an Allan West upset, which would be awesome) opponent because he will be white and Obama is black, you wouldn't look down on me at all? You wouldn't make any personal judgments?
So I would look down on you, but that does not mean I would try to get you to change your style of voting. That reeks of authoritarianism. I would simply want your voice at the same level as everyone else, which means no private funds heavily favoring one candidate who is now able to saturate everything with 10x more advertisements than his opponent.
In news that will crush the spirits of comedians across our great nation, The Donald has announced he will not run, but if he had, he wudda won.
But, in all likelihood, he will not shut up.
Figures, Obama is Frenchman of German descend. In 1890 he was born as Jean Paul Ludwig, he moved to the USA in 1924 and lived most of his life in Connecticut. He later moved to Hawai where he also died. Now that is all kinda odd but his SSN says so
TINFOIL HAT TIME