5 ms·

Hilarious how the GOP spends half its time screaming wildly about Obama trying to become a dictator and the other half of its time signing over constitutional p

by glesica 12y ago

Hilarious how the GOP spends half its time screaming wildly about Obama trying to become a dictator and the other half of its time signing over constitutional powers to him. To say nothing of the Democrats who spent eight years under Bush claiming executive authority had run amok and now can't pass the buck fast enough. This is why I don't vote, it isn't a struggle between Left and Right or Democrat and Republican, it's basically the people with money against everyone else. And my side (the people without money) lose no matter who gets elected in most cases.

fredleblanc 12y ago
Not to be that guy, but there are generally other candidates than just the main two. Most seem to ignore third-party candidates because they'll never win, but that quickly becomes a vicious circle: they probably won't win so people don't vote for them, it looks like they have little support so people won't bother, they continue to earn 1-3% of votes. That's not to say third party people are the greatest either, personally, a candidate needs to earn my vote, not just be the lesser of evils. What I'm saying is that if a non-main candidate interests you, I think it's worth your time to vote. The same way it's nice to tell someone on the Internet that you appreciate them. There are a lot of hardworking people trying to make the world better, they just don't have the funding, pull, or connections to make it happen. But as we've been seeing with recent protests: if there are enough people fed up with the current system, and people back another option, the (US) government does seem to still listen to its people.
- dingdingdang 12y ago
  Look up the history of the Greens in Germany they went from insignificant nth contender in the 1980s to ruling party - simply by slowly gathered the votes of discontent from people fed up with the two main parties. Not voting is not a strategy; should be mandatory in my opinion.
  - fredleblanc 12y ago
    I agree that too many in the country don't exercise their right to vote, but I wouldn't take away their right to abstain. But, I mean, that could be solved by having an `abstain` option on the ballot itself.
    - techdragon 12y ago
      Here in Australia it's mandatory to "vote" or you get a crappy little fine, few hundred, who cares. But here's the clever bit, voting just consists of showing up and giving your name so they can cross you off the list. You can take the ballot, and just shove it in the box blank. Perfectly legal "abstain" vote in a country where you have to vote.
  - TheOsiris 12y ago
    don't make it mandatory. we're lucky some people don't vote
- coldpie 12y ago
  And even if they don't win, third parties can influence policies of the main two. The main two want to avoid splitting voters across themselves and similar-but-different third parties. Third parties gaining a significant percentage can pull the main parties in their direction to avoid losing those voters again.
  - fredleblanc 12y ago
    Yes, absolutely! We had a case of this in Massachusetts this year in our governor's race. One of the third party candidates did so well during the first debate that all of the third-party candidates were then blocked from future debates. Of course, there's nothing exactly admitting that, but it seems like it could hardly be a coincidence. (In fact, the third-party candidate that did well was _uninvited_ from a future debate that he had already accepted an invitation to.) Bonus: he ended up earning the minimum 5% vote needed to establish a new political party[0] in the state! [0]: http://www.unitedindependent.org/ http://www.unitedindependent.org/
- ixwt 12y ago
  > they probably won't win so people don't vote for them, it looks like they have little support so people won't bother... This is a symptom of first past the post voting. CGPGrey does a great series of simple videos demonstrating alternative voting methods that I found particularly enjoyable[0]. [0]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=PLEcHCTVM79BMISVn4AV5EXSglGDzRgwgG&index=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=PLEcHCTVM79B...
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    See also http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/. But while we're looking at voting systems, let's not forget the issue at hand.
adestefan 12y ago
It's like the term "activist judge." They're just following the Constitution when it's something you like, but they're an "activist" when you don't like it.
theandrewbailey 12y ago
Not voting is perpetuating the cycle! Third party candidates exist. Vote for them.
- Lawtonfogle 12y ago
  Voting for the lesser evil doesn't work. It allows one side to get your vote by being barely better than the other. But I've been wondering, does voting third party work better than voting for good else greater evil? Voting third party means in most races your desires can be ignored, as you won't be voting for either candidate likely to win and thus will have no impact on the election. But if you vote for good else greater evil, in a system where most are either voting party regardless of actual candidate are voting for the lesser evil, do you have a better chance of getting the lesser evil side to try to change policies enough they register as good? If you are lucky enough to live somewhere where third party has a chance, that is the best choice. But what is the optimal strategy for those of us who don't?
  - theandrewbailey 12y ago
    > Voting third party means in most races your desires can be ignored, as you won't be voting for either candidate likely to win and thus will have no impact on the election. If you vote for the candidate that lost but still had 40% of the vote (and polls showed that ahead of time), does that mean your vote had no impact? Is your vote only meaningful if you vote for the candidate that won? If not, where is this (subjective?) line? > If you are lucky enough to live somewhere where third party has a chance, that is the best choice. But what is the optimal strategy for those of us who don't? The optimal strategy is to be the third option. It's how the system is supposed to work.
  - ctdonath 12y ago
    The problem is the same as for a business which needs to make a major change that will tick off customers and lose business until a critical point is reached, when things will suddenly get much better. Voting third party leads to the more acceptable major party losing and the more-evil party winning more power until enough finally support the third party enough to win. This process rarely goes well.
ctdonath 12y ago
Yup, the right-wing base is furious. We didn't push for an overwhelming win for Republicans in Congress just to hand the Obama darned near everything he wants. There's a whole lotta people who vote R only because "lesser of two evils"; they'd jump ship to a third party if only a viable strong leader would appear. Likewise, the Left had the House, Senate, and President and could have passed anything they wanted for two years. Their opportunity was blown too. (Yes, resistance from the opposition could have been overcome.) Hence the imperative of individual liberty in the US Constitution: grant the government minimal limited powers, leaving the population free to live as they see fit short of actual harm to others.
- Someone1234 12y ago
  > Hence the imperative of individual liberty in the US Constitution: grant the government minimal limited powers, leaving the population free to live as they see fit short of actual harm to others. There's nobody who actually wants to do that though. People on the right always make a song and dance about "limited government" but then go on to illegalise abortion, drugs, and pass mountains of pro-corporation (anti-small business) legislation. I see a lot of "small government" during election but none during terms. Where is this small government candidate? What have they been actually doing to accomplish it? And why is "small government" so often conflated with "small taxes?"
  - ctdonath 12y ago
    Hence my point about the right-wing base being so mad. Winning candidates spew just enough "small government" rhetoric to get elected, then forget about it when in power. A major problem is primaries. A slew of would-be candidates vie for the ticket, most of them being actual "small government" types, but the party vote gets split among them ... while a single "centrist"/"large government" candidate appeals to the left/centrist voters of the party, and garners more votes. If 70% of the party really does want "small government", with the 30% remaining wanting a "left/centrist" candidate, and there's 8 primary candidates, and 7 of them split the 70% vote into about 10% each, but the dissenting 30% minority all go for the "should be a Democrat" (aka "Republican In Name Only", aka RINO), then the "large government" candidate wins with 3 times the votes of any competitors. This has happened repeatedly, and is leaving the bulk of the Republican "base" very angry but with no viable alternatives that won't result in the Democrat winning thanks to splitting the vote on the way to replacing the Republican party.
jostmey 12y ago
Voting for the national elections is a joke. But voting in the local elections is important. There, you actually have a voice.
unprepare 12y ago
I've never voted in an election where the ONLY thing on the ballot was the president. If you aren't voting you are missing out on all your local and state level elections which you most certainly can effect change in. I would definitely encourage anyone to at least go to the polls and take a look at the ballot, there are almost always state level amendments and propositions to vote on that can have major effects on your state
- glesica 12y ago
  That's true, now that I live in Montana I'm much more inclined to vote because we have ballot initiatives and competitive parties. Previously I lived in Illinois where most parts of the state are single-party and there are no ballot initiatives (for the most part).
snowwrestler 12y ago
Fast track is a trade-off. It lets Congress set negotiating objectives, which new trade agreements must meet. If an agreement meets all the objectives, then it goes to a fast vote. If it doesn't, then it won't. It's not a blank check to the president, it's telling him up front "these are the must-haves." For example, Congress could pass a fast track bill that says that any new trade agreement must not extend copyright any farther. They probably won't, though, which is why EFF is opposing fast track. Fast track is fine as a governing concept, but if a group's objectives are not included in it, then that group tends to oppose fast track. The EFF has decided to talk about the process in their campaigns, rather than the substance--a choice I am not fond of, because I think it perpetuates citizen ignorance of how government actually works.

by glesica 12y ago

fredleblanc 12y ago

Not to be that guy, but there are generally other candidates than just the main two. Most seem to ignore third-party candidates because they'll never win, but that quickly becomes a vicious circle: they probably won't win so people don't vote for them, it looks like they have little support so people won't bother, they continue to earn 1-3% of votes. That's not to say third party people are the greatest either, personally, a candidate needs to earn my vote, not just be the lesser of evils. What I'm saying is that if a non-main candidate interests you, I think it's worth your time to vote. The same way it's nice to tell someone on the Internet that you appreciate them. There are a lot of hardworking people trying to make the world better, they just don't have the funding, pull, or connections to make it happen. But as we've been seeing with recent protests: if there are enough people fed up with the current system, and people back another option, the (US) government does seem to still listen to its people.

dingdingdang 12y ago
Look up the history of the Greens in Germany they went from insignificant nth contender in the 1980s to ruling party - simply by slowly gathered the votes of discontent from people fed up with the two main parties. Not voting is not a strategy; should be mandatory in my opinion.
- fredleblanc 12y ago
  I agree that too many in the country don't exercise their right to vote, but I wouldn't take away their right to abstain. But, I mean, that could be solved by having an `abstain` option on the ballot itself.
  - techdragon 12y ago
    Here in Australia it's mandatory to "vote" or you get a crappy little fine, few hundred, who cares. But here's the clever bit, voting just consists of showing up and giving your name so they can cross you off the list. You can take the ballot, and just shove it in the box blank. Perfectly legal "abstain" vote in a country where you have to vote.
- TheOsiris 12y ago
  don't make it mandatory. we're lucky some people don't vote
coldpie 12y ago
And even if they don't win, third parties can influence policies of the main two. The main two want to avoid splitting voters across themselves and similar-but-different third parties. Third parties gaining a significant percentage can pull the main parties in their direction to avoid losing those voters again.
- fredleblanc 12y ago
  Yes, absolutely! We had a case of this in Massachusetts this year in our governor's race. One of the third party candidates did so well during the first debate that all of the third-party candidates were then blocked from future debates. Of course, there's nothing exactly admitting that, but it seems like it could hardly be a coincidence. (In fact, the third-party candidate that did well was _uninvited_ from a future debate that he had already accepted an invitation to.) Bonus: he ended up earning the minimum 5% vote needed to establish a new political party[0] in the state! [0]: http://www.unitedindependent.org/ http://www.unitedindependent.org/
ixwt 12y ago
> they probably won't win so people don't vote for them, it looks like they have little support so people won't bother... This is a symptom of first past the post voting. CGPGrey does a great series of simple videos demonstrating alternative voting methods that I found particularly enjoyable[0]. [0]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=PLEcHCTVM79BMISVn4AV5EXSglGDzRgwgG&index=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=PLEcHCTVM79B...
- nitrogen 12y ago
  See also http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/. But while we're looking at voting systems, let's not forget the issue at hand.

adestefan 12y ago

It's like the term "activist judge." They're just following the Constitution when it's something you like, but they're an "activist" when you don't like it.

theandrewbailey 12y ago

Not voting is perpetuating the cycle! Third party candidates exist. Vote for them.

Lawtonfogle 12y ago
Voting for the lesser evil doesn't work. It allows one side to get your vote by being barely better than the other. But I've been wondering, does voting third party work better than voting for good else greater evil? Voting third party means in most races your desires can be ignored, as you won't be voting for either candidate likely to win and thus will have no impact on the election. But if you vote for good else greater evil, in a system where most are either voting party regardless of actual candidate are voting for the lesser evil, do you have a better chance of getting the lesser evil side to try to change policies enough they register as good? If you are lucky enough to live somewhere where third party has a chance, that is the best choice. But what is the optimal strategy for those of us who don't?
- theandrewbailey 12y ago
  > Voting third party means in most races your desires can be ignored, as you won't be voting for either candidate likely to win and thus will have no impact on the election. If you vote for the candidate that lost but still had 40% of the vote (and polls showed that ahead of time), does that mean your vote had no impact? Is your vote only meaningful if you vote for the candidate that won? If not, where is this (subjective?) line? > If you are lucky enough to live somewhere where third party has a chance, that is the best choice. But what is the optimal strategy for those of us who don't? The optimal strategy is to be the third option. It's how the system is supposed to work.
- ctdonath 12y ago
  The problem is the same as for a business which needs to make a major change that will tick off customers and lose business until a critical point is reached, when things will suddenly get much better. Voting third party leads to the more acceptable major party losing and the more-evil party winning more power until enough finally support the third party enough to win. This process rarely goes well.

ctdonath 12y ago

Yup, the right-wing base is furious. We didn't push for an overwhelming win for Republicans in Congress just to hand the Obama darned near everything he wants. There's a whole lotta people who vote R only because "lesser of two evils"; they'd jump ship to a third party if only a viable strong leader would appear. Likewise, the Left had the House, Senate, and President and could have passed anything they wanted for two years. Their opportunity was blown too. (Yes, resistance from the opposition could have been overcome.) Hence the imperative of individual liberty in the US Constitution: grant the government minimal limited powers, leaving the population free to live as they see fit short of actual harm to others.

Someone1234 12y ago
> Hence the imperative of individual liberty in the US Constitution: grant the government minimal limited powers, leaving the population free to live as they see fit short of actual harm to others. There's nobody who actually wants to do that though. People on the right always make a song and dance about "limited government" but then go on to illegalise abortion, drugs, and pass mountains of pro-corporation (anti-small business) legislation. I see a lot of "small government" during election but none during terms. Where is this small government candidate? What have they been actually doing to accomplish it? And why is "small government" so often conflated with "small taxes?"
- ctdonath 12y ago
  Hence my point about the right-wing base being so mad. Winning candidates spew just enough "small government" rhetoric to get elected, then forget about it when in power. A major problem is primaries. A slew of would-be candidates vie for the ticket, most of them being actual "small government" types, but the party vote gets split among them ... while a single "centrist"/"large government" candidate appeals to the left/centrist voters of the party, and garners more votes. If 70% of the party really does want "small government", with the 30% remaining wanting a "left/centrist" candidate, and there's 8 primary candidates, and 7 of them split the 70% vote into about 10% each, but the dissenting 30% minority all go for the "should be a Democrat" (aka "Republican In Name Only", aka RINO), then the "large government" candidate wins with 3 times the votes of any competitors. This has happened repeatedly, and is leaving the bulk of the Republican "base" very angry but with no viable alternatives that won't result in the Democrat winning thanks to splitting the vote on the way to replacing the Republican party.

jostmey 12y ago

Voting for the national elections is a joke. But voting in the local elections is important. There, you actually have a voice.

unprepare 12y ago

I've never voted in an election where the ONLY thing on the ballot was the president. If you aren't voting you are missing out on all your local and state level elections which you most certainly can effect change in. I would definitely encourage anyone to at least go to the polls and take a look at the ballot, there are almost always state level amendments and propositions to vote on that can have major effects on your state

glesica 12y ago
That's true, now that I live in Montana I'm much more inclined to vote because we have ballot initiatives and competitive parties. Previously I lived in Illinois where most parts of the state are single-party and there are no ballot initiatives (for the most part).

snowwrestler 12y ago

Fast track is a trade-off. It lets Congress set negotiating objectives, which new trade agreements must meet. If an agreement meets all the objectives, then it goes to a fast vote. If it doesn't, then it won't. It's not a blank check to the president, it's telling him up front "these are the must-haves." For example, Congress could pass a fast track bill that says that any new trade agreement must not extend copyright any farther. They probably won't, though, which is why EFF is opposing fast track. Fast track is fine as a governing concept, but if a group's objectives are not included in it, then that group tends to oppose fast track. The EFF has decided to talk about the process in their campaigns, rather than the substance--a choice I am not fond of, because I think it perpetuates citizen ignorance of how government actually works.