5 ms·

Voted for change. Obama is the one who changed.

Shivetya 13y ago
I seem to recall there was a recent election where this could have been corrected. If you vote for the lesser of two evils its not like your going to benefit. Until no politician/President can guarantee himself a second term will they ever feel accountable to the public. Yet the one thing they will count on is the ability to play on voters irrational fears/views of the other guy.
- scarmig 13y ago
  How could it have been corrected? Though I hesitate to say Romney would have been worse, he gave no indication of being better. Plus, campaign promises have a tendency toward melting away when facing hard reality. Even if a Green or Libertarian candidate had won (absolutely 0% chance), there's no reason to think they'd have followed through on their promises. They might want to, but so does Obama, presumably. It's just the structure of government that someone in the executive branch isn't going to be willing to use all of their political capital in a battle that weakens their own authority.
  - jmccree 13y ago
    I suspect a third party would be far more likely to expect only one term and attempt to accomplish as much as possible without worry for re-election. Though there have been so few examples of "true" third party wins at high levels to know. The best example might be Jesse Ventura. As well, you might expect people who consistently run as a third party knowing no chance of winning to be less susceptible to the political machine than others.
    - aaronbrethorst 13y ago
      Ventura only 'sought one term' because most of the state of Minnesota despised him and he never would've won re-election. He barely won the election as it was, with a bare plurality of votes in a 3 person race: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_gubernatorial_election,_1998 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_gubernatorial_electio...
  - jeffdavis 13y ago
    "It's just the structure of government that someone in the executive branch isn't going to be willing to use all of their political capital in a battle that weakens their own authority." In other words, once you give government power, there's essentially no chance that they will relinquish it.
  - a3n 13y ago
    There was a primary each time. It could have been another Democrat. Or you could have voted third party. As long as you vote for either major, you're voting for the same thing. C'mon. Doesn't everything Obama has said on surveillance sound exactly like what Bush would have said? They're the same, they just use different dog whistles.
  - rhizome 13y ago
    Plus, campaign promises have a tendency toward melting away when facing hard reality. I have a hard time believing that campaign promises are anything other than lies, told bald-facedly in order to satisfy an image being portrayed by the campaign. It's all an act, just like this NSA speech is likely just an act designed not to change anything. Reality is that they're going to do whatever they want to do.
- saraid216 13y ago
  > Until no politician/President can guarantee himself a second term will they ever feel accountable to the public. Why are we voting for second terms, then? Call for single-term presidencies.
- subsection1h 13y ago
  > If you vote for the lesser of two evils its not like your going to benefit. Plurality voting systems generally result in two dominant parties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
  - BrandonMarc 13y ago
    I just don't understand why the election always ends up being between Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich [0]. Honestly, Obama and Romney were the best leaders the US had to offer? I hate these cholera-vs-the-plague choices. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douche_and_Turd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douche_and_Turd
    - krapp 13y ago
      I think the system at that level isn't designed to find the best leaders. It's designed to generate a small number of candidates who can galvanize their base and consolidate power and funding for their parties, and who more importantly can be controlled by the party and be trusted to maintain the status quo.
    - tomelders 13y ago
      Trying to choose between two politicians is like trying to choose between two pairs of dirty underpants, when what you really need is a clean pair of underpants. I forget the source of that quote.
  - a3n 13y ago
    But it doesn't have to be the same two.
- gaius 13y ago
  Here in the UK, after Tony Blair, watching you guys elect Obama again was like watching a slow motion car crash.
  - tomelders 13y ago
    Let's not pretend there was a viable alternative to either Blair or Obama. Politics has descended to a level where every time the public get to vote their job is to pick the lesser of two evils.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > If you vote for the lesser of two evils its not like your going to benefit. Did you read Daniel Ellsberg's AMA interview on Reddit the other day? In it he was actually supportive of those who had voted for Obama based on the principle of the lesser evil, explicitly invoking the Duverger's Law mentioned in a sibling comment. Either way let's face it, the natural area a third-party split could occur at this point is within the GOP, not the Democrats, so a national concerted effort to vote outside the two-party bloc will do to the Republican candidate what Ross Perot did to Bush Sr., and what Ralph Nader did to Gore. To fix the "lesser of two evils" problem you have to fix how the voting process itself is done first.
  - icelancer 13y ago
    >To fix the "lesser of two evils" problem you have to fix how the voting process itself is done first. And this is going to be done by voting for the lesser of two evils? Interesting.
    - jessaustin 13y ago
      If you want to change the system, you have to first agree that the system is perfect and should not be changed.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      It's going to be done like any other major political change has happened, comfortably inside of that two-party system. You have to mobilize political pressure to effect the change at all, which is the same thing you'd need to do for success with a third-party strategy anyways. But hey, please feel free to do what you want, a real libertarian third party is the progressives' wet dream right now.
- foobarian 13y ago
  Seems like overturning Citizens United could help things. http://action.alfranken.com/page/s/e1307cue http://action.alfranken.com/page/s/e1307cue
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    Oh yeah, because our political system was a paragon of ethics, transparency, and trustworthiness before the bastards on the Supreme Court decided to let two dudes with an LLC sell a movie they made on a weekend that was critical of Hillary.
- a3n 13y ago
  "Until no politician/President can guarantee himself a second term will they ever feel accountable to the public." No, until they learn that they can't get in at all without being accountable to the public, no politician will feel accountable to the public. I don't know how to look at a politician pre-election and know that they'll be honest and keep citizens' rights foremost. Certainly not by listening to them, because I've noticed whenever they make sounds their lips are moving, and when their lips are moving they lie. So it would have to depend in part on their not being able to hide anything. Which would mean something like absolutely fucking open books, on everything, almost up to having a camera in the president's bathroom. Citizens would have to be able to inspect just about anything at all at a moment's notice. 'cause Congress won't. And if not the absolutes of the previous paragraph, then as close as we can get, and closer all the time. They lie, they have money and weapons, they have to be watched 24/7. Just like us.

I seem to recall there was a recent election where this could have been corrected. If you vote for the lesser of two evils its not like your going to benefit. Until no politician/President can guarantee himself a second term will they ever feel accountable to the public. Yet the one thing they will count on is the ability to play on voters irrational fears/views of the other guy.

scarmig 13y ago
How could it have been corrected? Though I hesitate to say Romney would have been worse, he gave no indication of being better. Plus, campaign promises have a tendency toward melting away when facing hard reality. Even if a Green or Libertarian candidate had won (absolutely 0% chance), there's no reason to think they'd have followed through on their promises. They might want to, but so does Obama, presumably. It's just the structure of government that someone in the executive branch isn't going to be willing to use all of their political capital in a battle that weakens their own authority.
- jmccree 13y ago
  I suspect a third party would be far more likely to expect only one term and attempt to accomplish as much as possible without worry for re-election. Though there have been so few examples of "true" third party wins at high levels to know. The best example might be Jesse Ventura. As well, you might expect people who consistently run as a third party knowing no chance of winning to be less susceptible to the political machine than others.
  - aaronbrethorst 13y ago
    Ventura only 'sought one term' because most of the state of Minnesota despised him and he never would've won re-election. He barely won the election as it was, with a bare plurality of votes in a 3 person race: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_gubernatorial_election,_1998 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_gubernatorial_electio...
- jeffdavis 13y ago
  "It's just the structure of government that someone in the executive branch isn't going to be willing to use all of their political capital in a battle that weakens their own authority." In other words, once you give government power, there's essentially no chance that they will relinquish it.
- a3n 13y ago
  There was a primary each time. It could have been another Democrat. Or you could have voted third party. As long as you vote for either major, you're voting for the same thing. C'mon. Doesn't everything Obama has said on surveillance sound exactly like what Bush would have said? They're the same, they just use different dog whistles.
- rhizome 13y ago
  Plus, campaign promises have a tendency toward melting away when facing hard reality. I have a hard time believing that campaign promises are anything other than lies, told bald-facedly in order to satisfy an image being portrayed by the campaign. It's all an act, just like this NSA speech is likely just an act designed not to change anything. Reality is that they're going to do whatever they want to do.
saraid216 13y ago
> Until no politician/President can guarantee himself a second term will they ever feel accountable to the public. Why are we voting for second terms, then? Call for single-term presidencies.
subsection1h 13y ago
> If you vote for the lesser of two evils its not like your going to benefit. Plurality voting systems generally result in two dominant parties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
- BrandonMarc 13y ago
  I just don't understand why the election always ends up being between Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich [0]. Honestly, Obama and Romney were the best leaders the US had to offer? I hate these cholera-vs-the-plague choices. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douche_and_Turd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douche_and_Turd
  - krapp 13y ago
    I think the system at that level isn't designed to find the best leaders. It's designed to generate a small number of candidates who can galvanize their base and consolidate power and funding for their parties, and who more importantly can be controlled by the party and be trusted to maintain the status quo.
  - tomelders 13y ago
    Trying to choose between two politicians is like trying to choose between two pairs of dirty underpants, when what you really need is a clean pair of underpants. I forget the source of that quote.
- a3n 13y ago
  But it doesn't have to be the same two.
gaius 13y ago
Here in the UK, after Tony Blair, watching you guys elect Obama again was like watching a slow motion car crash.
- tomelders 13y ago
  Let's not pretend there was a viable alternative to either Blair or Obama. Politics has descended to a level where every time the public get to vote their job is to pick the lesser of two evils.
mpyne 13y ago
> If you vote for the lesser of two evils its not like your going to benefit. Did you read Daniel Ellsberg's AMA interview on Reddit the other day? In it he was actually supportive of those who had voted for Obama based on the principle of the lesser evil, explicitly invoking the Duverger's Law mentioned in a sibling comment. Either way let's face it, the natural area a third-party split could occur at this point is within the GOP, not the Democrats, so a national concerted effort to vote outside the two-party bloc will do to the Republican candidate what Ross Perot did to Bush Sr., and what Ralph Nader did to Gore. To fix the "lesser of two evils" problem you have to fix how the voting process itself is done first.
- icelancer 13y ago
  >To fix the "lesser of two evils" problem you have to fix how the voting process itself is done first. And this is going to be done by voting for the lesser of two evils? Interesting.
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    If you want to change the system, you have to first agree that the system is perfect and should not be changed.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    It's going to be done like any other major political change has happened, comfortably inside of that two-party system. You have to mobilize political pressure to effect the change at all, which is the same thing you'd need to do for success with a third-party strategy anyways. But hey, please feel free to do what you want, a real libertarian third party is the progressives' wet dream right now.
foobarian 13y ago
Seems like overturning Citizens United could help things. http://action.alfranken.com/page/s/e1307cue http://action.alfranken.com/page/s/e1307cue
- jessaustin 13y ago
  Oh yeah, because our political system was a paragon of ethics, transparency, and trustworthiness before the bastards on the Supreme Court decided to let two dudes with an LLC sell a movie they made on a weekend that was critical of Hillary.
a3n 13y ago
"Until no politician/President can guarantee himself a second term will they ever feel accountable to the public." No, until they learn that they can't get in at all without being accountable to the public, no politician will feel accountable to the public. I don't know how to look at a politician pre-election and know that they'll be honest and keep citizens' rights foremost. Certainly not by listening to them, because I've noticed whenever they make sounds their lips are moving, and when their lips are moving they lie. So it would have to depend in part on their not being able to hide anything. Which would mean something like absolutely fucking open books, on everything, almost up to having a camera in the president's bathroom. Citizens would have to be able to inspect just about anything at all at a moment's notice. 'cause Congress won't. And if not the absolutes of the previous paragraph, then as close as we can get, and closer all the time. They lie, they have money and weapons, they have to be watched 24/7. Just like us.