4 ms·

Let's all remember this kind of thing the next time we are inspired by a candidate's promises or rhetoric.

fixxer 13y ago
If we all stop having children, then there will be less inspired youth willing to buy any candidate's pack of lies. And the world will be full of crotchety old bastards like myself. Yay!
AlexandrB 13y ago
Okay. Who should Americans vote for then? Here's what the Conservative party had to say during the 2008 election cycle: "Although our country has thwarted new terrorist attacks since 2001, those threats do persist. That is why our reform of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was so vital, and why the Democrats' opposition to it was so wrong." Hmm, sounds like they were promising more of the same. If your suggestion is voting for an independent, is there a realistic scenario where an independent candidate could get elected in the United States?
- unknownian 13y ago
  >is there a realistic scenario where an independent candidate could get elected in the United States? Do you know about the 5% funding rule in the US? Why not vote for a third party?
  - enraged_camel 13y ago
    >>Why not vote for a third party? Because it does nothing.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Neither it seems, does voting for one of the two main parties.
      - enraged_camel 13y ago
        You have a fourth option.
        jlgreco 13y ago
        There are several other options, some more practical than others. If only we required a hard majority of Americans to vote for somebody for them to win, then abstaining from voting could become an option with teeth. Then candidates would have to convince the public that they should vote for them, rather than just convincing the public not to vote for the other guy. Abstaining is, in my opinion, a respectable choice. Any vote is a vote of confidence in the system; if everybody who didn't like any of the candidates just stayed home instead of "voting for the lesser evil", then the farce that is our democracy would be made plain. Abstaining isn't the only interesting option though. Another option is enfranchisement where instead of voting on the behalf of yourself you instead vote on the behalf of one of the billions of disenfranchised. National elections in developed countries don't just affect the nation in question but rather the world. The lives of many in other countries literally hangs in the balance during American elections but they are not permitted to participate. Perhaps worse, many Americans are not permitted to vote just because they are not recognized as 'citizens'. Next election, perhaps instead of abstaining, vote on the behalf of somebody who is not represented. An individual doing this is not going to change anything but a national enfranchisement campaign has the potential to be subversive. We need a discussion on what being a democracy actually means.
        enraged_camel 13y ago
        >>We need a discussion on what being a democracy actually means. Unfortunately, the American political system is not equipped to train and empower the type of enlightened leader(s) who can initiate and lead this type of discussion.
    - mindcrime 13y ago
      It does as much as voting for the major party.
  - AlexandrB 13y ago
    I did not know about this! I assume you mean this: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml Interesting, but it comes with a bunch of conditions (these are for 2008): - General election spending limited to $84.1 million - Primary spending limited to $42.05 million Quick google search revealed that in 2008, the dem/con candidate spent almost $1B each: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aerix76GvmRM http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aerix... I'm not sure the public funding will help! Certainly it might get your foot in the door for one election cycle, but it won't win an election without a lot of grassroots support.
    - redblacktree 13y ago
      It would make it easier to get into debates.
- danenania 13y ago
  "If your suggestion is voting for an independent, is there a realistic scenario where an independent candidate could get elected in the United States?" How about a scenario in which all the people who claim to be voting for the lesser of two evils reevaluate their own defeatist attitude? If the only thing stopping a significant enough percentage of people from voting for a 3rd party is the perceived inability to win, then it's just a coordination problem. It would be interesting to see a poll asking "If you knew the candidate you voted for could win, who would you vote for?" Another argument for voting according to your principles is that based on the electoral college system, only people living in a few states actually contribute to the outcome of the election with their votes, so if you don't live in one of those states, you might as well show your support for someone you don't consider to be evil.
  - AlexandrB 13y ago
    > How about a scenario in which all the people who claim to be voting for the lesser of two evils reevaluate their own defeatist attitude? If the only thing stopping a significant enough percentage of people from voting for a 3rd party is the perceived inability to win, then it's just a coordination problem. I think that's a bit idealistic. A lot of people voted Ralph Nader in 2000, and while it's up for debate whether this cost Gore the election, I think many voters are now turned off the idea. In a close con/dem race, I think many would rather have some of their positions represented by the resulting POTUS than shoot for the moon and risk "splitting the vote". One of the major parties would have to do some truly outrageous shit and alienate their base before this dynamic changes.
    - snth 13y ago
      > One of the major parties would have to do some truly outrageous shit and alienate their base before this dynamic changes. For me, recent events qualify.
    - cgranade 13y ago
      I agree with you, but I'd have hoped the outrageous shit happening now would be enough to break the two-party dynamic, but I'm rather doubting it, having seen that the reactions are defined by the media in an entirely two-party manner. I think if anything from the NSA leaks changes this dynamic, it will be the exodus of technology dollars from the US.
- pedro84 13y ago
  Seems pretty clear that it's time for the next generation (cyber-citizen party?) to start running for office. /me writes in tptacek / cperciva
- GoodIntentions 13y ago
  >>Hmm, sounds like they were promising more of the same. >>If your suggestion is voting for an independent, is there a realistic scenario where an independent candidate could get elected in the United States? Do you feel disenfranchised yet?
- einhverfr 13y ago
  Voting should be a minor part of political advocacy. Make noise. Vote for the parties that will listen to you and try to make policy in favor of what you demand. If they disappoint, kick them out of office by voting for the other guys or at least issuing a protest vote. What voting does is it gives bite to all the rest of the political action one does during a term of elected office. It is what makes political speech effective. It does not replace it.
- Zoomla 13y ago
  vote for nobody... if there is a very small percentage of the population that votes, can they really say that this is a democracy?
- pvdm 13y ago
  Vote Green. http://stallman.org/ http://stallman.org/
acheron 13y ago
Anyone who gets "inspired" by politicians is dangerous. A politician should cause mild disgust, at best.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - fetbaffe 13y ago
    The difference would have been that then everyone had rallied against the evil Republican. Now instead you are called a racist for even implying that Obama is an authoritarian statist. Look what happened to the rodeo clown.

If we all stop having children, then there will be less inspired youth willing to buy any candidate's pack of lies. And the world will be full of crotchety old bastards like myself. Yay!

AlexandrB 13y ago

Okay. Who should Americans vote for then? Here's what the Conservative party had to say during the 2008 election cycle: "Although our country has thwarted new terrorist attacks since 2001, those threats do persist. That is why our reform of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was so vital, and why the Democrats' opposition to it was so wrong." Hmm, sounds like they were promising more of the same. If your suggestion is voting for an independent, is there a realistic scenario where an independent candidate could get elected in the United States?

unknownian 13y ago
>is there a realistic scenario where an independent candidate could get elected in the United States? Do you know about the 5% funding rule in the US? Why not vote for a third party?
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  >>Why not vote for a third party? Because it does nothing.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Neither it seems, does voting for one of the two main parties.
    - enraged_camel 13y ago
      You have a fourth option.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        There are several other options, some more practical than others. If only we required a hard majority of Americans to vote for somebody for them to win, then abstaining from voting could become an option with teeth. Then candidates would have to convince the public that they should vote for them, rather than just convincing the public not to vote for the other guy. Abstaining is, in my opinion, a respectable choice. Any vote is a vote of confidence in the system; if everybody who didn't like any of the candidates just stayed home instead of "voting for the lesser evil", then the farce that is our democracy would be made plain. Abstaining isn't the only interesting option though. Another option is enfranchisement where instead of voting on the behalf of yourself you instead vote on the behalf of one of the billions of disenfranchised. National elections in developed countries don't just affect the nation in question but rather the world. The lives of many in other countries literally hangs in the balance during American elections but they are not permitted to participate. Perhaps worse, many Americans are not permitted to vote just because they are not recognized as 'citizens'. Next election, perhaps instead of abstaining, vote on the behalf of somebody who is not represented. An individual doing this is not going to change anything but a national enfranchisement campaign has the potential to be subversive. We need a discussion on what being a democracy actually means.
        enraged_camel 13y ago
        >>We need a discussion on what being a democracy actually means. Unfortunately, the American political system is not equipped to train and empower the type of enlightened leader(s) who can initiate and lead this type of discussion.
  - mindcrime 13y ago
    It does as much as voting for the major party.
- AlexandrB 13y ago
  I did not know about this! I assume you mean this: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml Interesting, but it comes with a bunch of conditions (these are for 2008): - General election spending limited to $84.1 million - Primary spending limited to $42.05 million Quick google search revealed that in 2008, the dem/con candidate spent almost $1B each: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aerix76GvmRM http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aerix... I'm not sure the public funding will help! Certainly it might get your foot in the door for one election cycle, but it won't win an election without a lot of grassroots support.
  - redblacktree 13y ago
    It would make it easier to get into debates.
danenania 13y ago
"If your suggestion is voting for an independent, is there a realistic scenario where an independent candidate could get elected in the United States?" How about a scenario in which all the people who claim to be voting for the lesser of two evils reevaluate their own defeatist attitude? If the only thing stopping a significant enough percentage of people from voting for a 3rd party is the perceived inability to win, then it's just a coordination problem. It would be interesting to see a poll asking "If you knew the candidate you voted for could win, who would you vote for?" Another argument for voting according to your principles is that based on the electoral college system, only people living in a few states actually contribute to the outcome of the election with their votes, so if you don't live in one of those states, you might as well show your support for someone you don't consider to be evil.
- AlexandrB 13y ago
  > How about a scenario in which all the people who claim to be voting for the lesser of two evils reevaluate their own defeatist attitude? If the only thing stopping a significant enough percentage of people from voting for a 3rd party is the perceived inability to win, then it's just a coordination problem. I think that's a bit idealistic. A lot of people voted Ralph Nader in 2000, and while it's up for debate whether this cost Gore the election, I think many voters are now turned off the idea. In a close con/dem race, I think many would rather have some of their positions represented by the resulting POTUS than shoot for the moon and risk "splitting the vote". One of the major parties would have to do some truly outrageous shit and alienate their base before this dynamic changes.
  - snth 13y ago
    > One of the major parties would have to do some truly outrageous shit and alienate their base before this dynamic changes. For me, recent events qualify.
  - cgranade 13y ago
    I agree with you, but I'd have hoped the outrageous shit happening now would be enough to break the two-party dynamic, but I'm rather doubting it, having seen that the reactions are defined by the media in an entirely two-party manner. I think if anything from the NSA leaks changes this dynamic, it will be the exodus of technology dollars from the US.
pedro84 13y ago
Seems pretty clear that it's time for the next generation (cyber-citizen party?) to start running for office. /me writes in tptacek / cperciva
GoodIntentions 13y ago
>>Hmm, sounds like they were promising more of the same. >>If your suggestion is voting for an independent, is there a realistic scenario where an independent candidate could get elected in the United States? Do you feel disenfranchised yet?
einhverfr 13y ago
Voting should be a minor part of political advocacy. Make noise. Vote for the parties that will listen to you and try to make policy in favor of what you demand. If they disappoint, kick them out of office by voting for the other guys or at least issuing a protest vote. What voting does is it gives bite to all the rest of the political action one does during a term of elected office. It is what makes political speech effective. It does not replace it.
Zoomla 13y ago
vote for nobody... if there is a very small percentage of the population that votes, can they really say that this is a democracy?
pvdm 13y ago
Vote Green. http://stallman.org/ http://stallman.org/

acheron 13y ago

Anyone who gets "inspired" by politicians is dangerous. A politician should cause mild disgust, at best.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- fetbaffe 13y ago
  The difference would have been that then everyone had rallied against the evil Republican. Now instead you are called a racist for even implying that Obama is an authoritarian statist. Look what happened to the rodeo clown.