Pure partisans are already locked in battle for this upcoming election, the hard core Democrat most certainly will vote for President Obama, the hard rights are going to vote for Governor Romney in spite of concerns for the depth of his conservatism. The battleground is going to be the middle and the folks like many here, totally frustrated and untrusting of the two party system.
This morning’s dismal jobs numbers are a plus for the Romney camp, but the fact that new employment is not even meeting the numbers necessary to accommodate population growth will not deter Obama supporters, the illusion of a moral high ground will keep them waving the blue and white pom-poms.
It would be great if we could go issue by issue to make our choice, unfortunately both sides so muddy the true facts that even an issue oriented campaign should be subject to verification. Essentially, unless you have time to research every issue important to you, you first have to wade through the propaganda (From both sides) on the Internet that encompasses the first 50-100 links on Google.
The Batavian has proven to be a great forum for many to discuss politics, including local, state and national. There are however, the wannabe pundits, the headstrong and stubborn, the hyper-partisans, the total libertarians, the politically gullible, the emotionally guided bleeding heart, the ultra-conservative, the near socialist progressive, the middle of the road fence sitters, slightly informed, the talking point specialist (On both sides), The political counties chairs, the political town chairs and a wide range of opinions including those that feel we are not all in control so it doesn’t matter types. It is up to you to decide which category or categories you are, but make no mistake, we all fall under at least one of them. This is a GOOD THING.
How conservative a candidate is or for that matter, how liberal a candidate is really doesn’t matter. What should matter are the individual issues.
<blockquote>1) The Economy – Which candidate has the best plan to stimulate private sector growth? Why specifically private sector growth, because the private sector pays the bills.
2) Fiscal Prudence- We cannot sustain unbridled spending to accommodate a social wish list or an unchecked government bureaucracy.
3) Personal Freedom- What the government gives, the government can also take. Human nature leads us to vote for politicians based on what they promise to give us. Perhaps we are again in a time where our primary question should be “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!” Charity and civic involvement has been an American moniker since our inception, it is also in my humble opinion, the key to protecting our freedoms.
</Blockquote>
While polls like this are entertaining and somewhat a catalyst for discussion, every issue coming up to November should be thoroughly examined, talking points aside, simply the facts and nothing but the facts.
Mark, Let's break it down further by your criteria. Being as unpartisan as possible, this is what I see your choice boiling down too.
1- Economy-
A) One side believes the government should attempt to stimulate the economey by giving tax breaks to those that make over a certain amount, the other does not.
B) The other side believes the government should take an active roll trying to stimulate growth using tax dollars, the other side does not.
2- Fiscal Prudance-
This doesn't exist on either side. Both will deficit spend. One gives unpaid tax cuts and prefers high military spending. The other gives unpaid tax cuts and spends on social programs. So the real question is high military spending or social spending, pick one.
3- Personal Freedom-
Both parties are willing to restrict personal freedom. One wants to babysit people, the other wants to preach its brand of morality.
Mark; "It is up to you to decide which category or categories you are, but make no mistake, we all fall under at least one of them"
I refuse to be limited by the boundaries of yours or anyone's labels. Not everyone has to be categorized and tied up in a neat little package with a pretty bow on it. This is one of the reasons so many people don't get involved in the political process. If you believe one way on a certain issue, therefor you are one of them or one of us. This is also why candidates need to be on aballot without any D or R or C or whatever after their name.
YOU Decide what you are, not any one label or any one person defines who or what you are. That is why I was specific, whether you fall under that or any of a multitude of positions is unimportant, what is important is centering on issues and not the label.
I know all too well you have opinions, and at times they fall under some of those categories that I listed and at times other categories that I didn’t, but again it is each issue that is important in an election, NOT the label.
Charlie,
1. To use either of your A or the B statement is an oversimplification, there is more to each side’s argument, but in reality what other alternative is there?
2. Again, an over simplification, it isn’t just a choice between A & B, The argument is really is it the role of the federal government to fund, maintain and create social programs, up until Woodrow Wilson, it clearly was not. The argument is in fact would social spending be better controlled and more effective on a local or regional level. That has now been debated for over 100 years in this country.
3. Yet a third over simplification, yes there are Dems that want everything from Government like Manna from heaven, and Republicans who think if you are not a southern Baptist you are doomed to hell. The overwhelming majority of both is closer to the middle.
Picking one is only necessitated when people blindly follow a candidate solely on party. My point is every statement from a candidate needs to be checked for accuracy and context, and when they are wrong, they need to be taken to task by not only the opposition but those who support them.
My statement in the original post is more philosophical than toward any party.
Mark; I'd have to say that while of course a candidate's positions on the issues is much more important than his affiliations or perceived ideology. But, I still believe as i wrote last week that character matters the most, who cares what someone's positions are if you don't believe them?
Mark, our two party system is simplistic, the parties are essentially the same. You might believe there is a large difference between Mitt and Obama but, I know there isn't. They do the same thing, they say basically the same things. It amazes me how very similar Obama turned out to Bush. I know cable news wants to work up how the world is coming to an end if either is elected. I don't buy it and I can't see how my life could ever change one bit regardless. Mitt is a very good lier. You can tell me all day, how he isn't a centrist governor from Massachusetts and that won't make it so.
It's time to come to grips with the idea we are being made fools of by the system. I'm voting for Obama but, I'll sleep OK if Mitt wins. Nothing will change besides military spending levels. More of the same....
Given that we do not have a parliamentary system or instant runoff voting, there being two major parties make sense. Do you really want a candidate being elected with less than a third of the vote? That's the reality that comes with having strong and large third parties.
Parties in general make sense because people want to politically be affiliated with people who have in general the same beliefs, the two parties becoming 'big tents' means that people from across their respective spectrum's can feel comfortable in them, which negates the need for large third parties.
In New York we have electoral fusion, which enables third parties to become active in a meaningful way beyond just playing the spoiler. People with ideologies not fitting into the major parties or with a mix of views have a real opportunity to make a difference with them. They can cross endorse other major or minor party candidates and form electoral coalitions. There are of course times when third party campaigns come about from these parties, but more often than not they are resolved through the primary process. I do not believe that fusion is at all the bad actor that it is made out to be.
I also respect registered independents....and I will say that people who have a moderate core matter and should be more prominent on our political scene.
If we truly want to affect the two party systems, the political reality is that the two parties both have far more money behind them than any third party candidate can match. Remember Ross Perot, a poor man by no means yet the best he was able to accomplish was to deny Bush 41 a victory, he really had absolutely no chance of winning.
Conversely, the TEA PARTY, whether one believes in their positions or not, did in fact shake up the Republican party in 2010 to the point where congressional candidates thought to be a shoe in were unseated at the primary level. For better or worse, the Tea Party did in fact bring change to the GOP.
Let us suppose that every time in this Internet age, that a candidate is barraged on a site like this one fact based retort (Not Talking Points) and not based on party rhetoric but based on sincere questions as to the validity of their position. That essentially is calling a candidate to task, and in essence is asking a candidate to show us his/her character.
An example is a few days ago when Howard presented an opportunity to post questions to Kathy Hochul on her positions, was it two or three posters, only two or three responses with a question. What if there were ten questions posed?
The same would go for Chris Collins, what if the questions we ask take him off of his talking points, he is trying to brand Representative Hochul with the Hochul/Obama care label, well Mr. Collins how is that so? Representative Hochul repeatedly has said that she is not fond of certain mechanisms for covering the cost of Obama care, and would roll back certain taxes and charges included in the law. Fine Mrs. Hochul assuming that you are successful, how then would you replace the funding mechanisms?
In this new blog driven era, we do have a way of getting those questions through, just like Mr. Collin’s slip of the tongue last week got picked up in the blogosphere, so too will at least some of these questions find their way from one blog to another and yes some will even get picked up by more traditional media.
An apathetic approach will not. If we shrug our shoulders and say oh well, it doesn’t matter what we say, life will go on etc. The we can bitch and moan all that we want and there is no hope for affecting a change in the party system.
I am not naïve, I realize that 90% of people barely pay attention to politics until just a few weeks before the election, but I also can see the possibility that if a few average folks keep asking the questions, in this Internet age there is more hope those grass roots type pressures can be asserted toward both parties, and the only real hope of a third or fourth party rest with a similar grass roots type movement.
If we sit back and let the living room Internet pundits however, spew talking point after talking point unchecked, we then we get the government that we deserve.
Electoral fusion is not the problem Daniel, this is beyond that, the question in the poll was based on how conservative Mitt Romney, I say who cares. For that matter how liberal Barack Obama is who cares there as well.
It is even beyond two parties or three parties, it is about calling candidates to task about their positions in my opinion, the 30 second sound bite, the carefully choreographed talking points are both staples in state and national politics, less so in local politics. To Charlie’s point, I say it is because of these that make Charlie’s position about little difference between candidates a valid argument. All talking points actually do is give the hyper-partisan validity.
If we want a truly issue based election and eventual President, Senator or Representative, we as citizens have to take our heads out of the sand and challenge every talking point regardless of which candidate or party presents them.
A liar only gets over on you if you accept the lie as truth; a politician becomes a liar when he isn’t taken to task.
We become sheep, when we allow the Politician to become the liar.
Mark, speaking as someone who voted for Ross Perot twice, my votes had nothing to do with the other two candidates. Who cares who lost? Ross was the last guy who was truly different and could have won. Talk about a guy without vetted talking points.
Charlie, we are not that far off, if Blue Dog Democrats were again viable, the Democrats would have faired better in 2010.
No one can expect any candidate to be 100% on issues with virtually any voter.
My reference to Ross Perot wasn't about either candidate, it was that as rich a man as he was he coould not match the better funded Republican and Democratic party.
As far as the TEA Party, I said,'For better or worse they affected change' nothing to do with right or left.
My point is that APATHY is something both parties count on, you stir up your base, you drag people to the polls, and you only need a few of the apathetics to win, That is the drag on our political system, that is what actually makes much of your point valid.
Just as you say the TEA PARTY drove the GOP to the right, the Leftist activist drove the Democrats to the left.
Mark, we usually are not that far away. I deleted that last paragraph before you posted because I thought it went off topic. It's obvious you got my intent.
Mark,
Just a point. Ross Perot was doing very well his first time. Then he dropped out of the race, made some really weird statements, later got back in the race, and never made up the lost ground. He came in third.
After that, while he ran a second time, he never had a chance.
We'll never know how well he would have done had he not dropped out the first time.
Looking back with what we now know about politics, maybe there was something to those "dirty tricks" Perot used to talk about. He was running head first at both political machines and had no one on his team that specialized in spin. What the public interpreted from that time was he said strange things.
Howard, I know a majority of people feel as I do but, being socially progressive and fiscally conservative isn't a good fit for either party. The recent polarization has left very little room for Blue Dog Democrats and Companionate Conservatives in their parties. Although, maybe in the end moderates like Mitt still have a chance, thats if they are good liers.
Point taken John, Would be interesting to see how that race would have played out if the Interner Blog was as prevelant then as it is now, but well we truly will never know.
Independently minded voters would be better represented if they stopped being members of either party and started voting for like-minded candidates instead of buying into the false notion of "lesser of two evils."
If we keep voting for the lesser of two evils, all we're left with is evil.
Howard, the lack of a real field of candidates drives voting for the lesser of two evils. Neither candidate fits the mainstream. People are forced to pick and choose a candidate that they might agree with only half a platform. Do away with the two party system and force these people to find common ground to establish a government. Then the balance of power can shift away from these small loud fringe groups.
Does it matter in New York State who you vote for President?....Obama has New York locked up...The electoral college's votes for this state are his....Unless you are in a so called swing state the vote is already set ....Do away with the electoral college and you might see more independent candidates......The whole campaign for president is centered around winning each State's electoral vote ..Popular vote as a whole doesn't matter..
Charlie, there will be more than two choices on the presidential ballot.
And if we did away with fusion voting in NY, there would likely be more than two candidates in NY-27.
Of course, I said it before, we should do a consolidated primary where all candidates appear on a single ballot, Republican and Democrat and third party.
Mark, if you do away with the electoral college, all that one would need to do is campaign in California, Chicago, NYC, Boston, DC and Southern Florida. It would simply make swing states out of them on a permament basis.
What people forget is that we DO NOT live in a pure Democracy, we live in a Democratic Republic. If you really think about it, Hugo Chavez and Adolf Hitler were initially elected in pure democracies.
Where the electoral college has gone wrong is that since the early 1900's the sovernty of the states has steadily eroded and ceded to the sovernty of the Fed.
How can any state be assessed, locked-in? At least 40% of registered voters lack motivation to even vote. The GOP candidate won the nomination by attrition. The Democratic candidate is a lame duck with a 31% approval rating. The choice is essentially, Obama Vs Obama-light. Endorsement of most third party candidates remains pending. Terry Jones has yet to gear up his independent challenge machine- his rhetoric sliced far to the right of Romney and stewed in Florida garum. It's a given, some Texas billionaire with the bug is lying low, timing an eleventh hour ascendency.
Mark - That's simply not true, the metropolitan areas of the major cities do not even come close to being a majority of the vote for the rest of the nation or of the population. Eliminating the electoral college will force candidates into places where they've never had to campaign, including in areas in non-swing states with decently high voting percentages, like Western New York. When's the last time you've seen a major Presidential campaign roll into Bismark, North Dakota or Providence, Rhode Island?
It is so challenging debating with you Daniel; you truly are a worthy adversary. That said, the link that you post are by an advocate of the popular vote, they maintain a position, I will get back to that, but there is a constitutional position as well.
Initially, the intent was to have the state assemblies choose the President with the intent of establishing the states as the prime conduit from the Federal Government to the people. It also was a safety valve to prevent mass voter fraud and more importantly election by hysteria. The college was established as a compromise during the constitutional convention because many of the founders felt that by entrusting state legislatures, a president would be too beholding to a given states special interest and to reduce political favoritism by the Presidency toward any individual state.
Now as to the link that you provided by those advocating popular election, their entire argument is based on pure numerical rational, what is not pointed out is that slightly less than 80% of our population lives in Urban areas, slight more than 20% in rural areas. The needs and concerns of are vastly different between the two. Contrary to their claim that a popular vote would not affect fly over country, one need only view the last 3 electoral results maps. All three showed substantially a difference in results between the urban states and the more rural states. The breakdown of electoral votes that is posted on that sight while numerically accurate does not reflect the regional concerns in a federal election.
The most important aspect of the argument that the site you posted is this, it further places federal importance ahead of individual state. When you do that, you pretty much remove another layer of control in lieu of an ever more powerful fed.
I do not say that changes along the way are not prudent, the 12th Amendment made distinct changes to the Electoral College and clauses in the 14th and 24th Amendments addressed other possible issues in the Electoral College to guard against voter disenfranchisement.
I would actually like to see some changes as to how electors are dispersed. In most states, the winner of the state election gets all of the state's electoral votes. In two states, Maine and Nebraska, however, the winner of the state only gets two votes, one representing each Senator. The other electoral votes are distributed according to the (Presidential race)winner of each congressional district in the state. If apportionment like this were applied in most states, the entire swing state concept would be of much less importance.
Advocates of most political positions tend to over simplify the result. There are many consequences of a constitutional amendment that go unnoticed until enacted.
Pure partisans are already
Pure partisans are already locked in battle for this upcoming election, the hard core Democrat most certainly will vote for President Obama, the hard rights are going to vote for Governor Romney in spite of concerns for the depth of his conservatism. The battleground is going to be the middle and the folks like many here, totally frustrated and untrusting of the two party system.
This morning’s dismal jobs numbers are a plus for the Romney camp, but the fact that new employment is not even meeting the numbers necessary to accommodate population growth will not deter Obama supporters, the illusion of a moral high ground will keep them waving the blue and white pom-poms.
It would be great if we could go issue by issue to make our choice, unfortunately both sides so muddy the true facts that even an issue oriented campaign should be subject to verification. Essentially, unless you have time to research every issue important to you, you first have to wade through the propaganda (From both sides) on the Internet that encompasses the first 50-100 links on Google.
The Batavian has proven to be a great forum for many to discuss politics, including local, state and national. There are however, the wannabe pundits, the headstrong and stubborn, the hyper-partisans, the total libertarians, the politically gullible, the emotionally guided bleeding heart, the ultra-conservative, the near socialist progressive, the middle of the road fence sitters, slightly informed, the talking point specialist (On both sides), The political counties chairs, the political town chairs and a wide range of opinions including those that feel we are not all in control so it doesn’t matter types. It is up to you to decide which category or categories you are, but make no mistake, we all fall under at least one of them. This is a GOOD THING.
How conservative a candidate is or for that matter, how liberal a candidate is really doesn’t matter. What should matter are the individual issues.
<blockquote>1) The Economy – Which candidate has the best plan to stimulate private sector growth? Why specifically private sector growth, because the private sector pays the bills.
2) Fiscal Prudence- We cannot sustain unbridled spending to accommodate a social wish list or an unchecked government bureaucracy.
3) Personal Freedom- What the government gives, the government can also take. Human nature leads us to vote for politicians based on what they promise to give us. Perhaps we are again in a time where our primary question should be “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!” Charity and civic involvement has been an American moniker since our inception, it is also in my humble opinion, the key to protecting our freedoms.
</Blockquote>
While polls like this are entertaining and somewhat a catalyst for discussion, every issue coming up to November should be thoroughly examined, talking points aside, simply the facts and nothing but the facts.
Mark, Let's break it down
Mark, Let's break it down further by your criteria. Being as unpartisan as possible, this is what I see your choice boiling down too.
1- Economy-
A) One side believes the government should attempt to stimulate the economey by giving tax breaks to those that make over a certain amount, the other does not.
B) The other side believes the government should take an active roll trying to stimulate growth using tax dollars, the other side does not.
2- Fiscal Prudance-
This doesn't exist on either side. Both will deficit spend. One gives unpaid tax cuts and prefers high military spending. The other gives unpaid tax cuts and spends on social programs. So the real question is high military spending or social spending, pick one.
3- Personal Freedom-
Both parties are willing to restrict personal freedom. One wants to babysit people, the other wants to preach its brand of morality.
Pick one...
By the new definition of
By the new definition of Conservatism (last 10 or so years), Romney is very conservative. By my definition, not so much.
Mark; "It is up to you to
Mark; "It is up to you to decide which category or categories you are, but make no mistake, we all fall under at least one of them"
I refuse to be limited by the boundaries of yours or anyone's labels. Not everyone has to be categorized and tied up in a neat little package with a pretty bow on it. This is one of the reasons so many people don't get involved in the political process. If you believe one way on a certain issue, therefor you are one of them or one of us. This is also why candidates need to be on aballot without any D or R or C or whatever after their name.
Dave You missed the point,
Dave You missed the point,
YOU Decide what you are, not any one label or any one person defines who or what you are. That is why I was specific, whether you fall under that or any of a multitude of positions is unimportant, what is important is centering on issues and not the label.
I know all too well you have opinions, and at times they fall under some of those categories that I listed and at times other categories that I didn’t, but again it is each issue that is important in an election, NOT the label.
Charlie, 1. To use either of
Charlie,
1. To use either of your A or the B statement is an oversimplification, there is more to each side’s argument, but in reality what other alternative is there?
2. Again, an over simplification, it isn’t just a choice between A & B, The argument is really is it the role of the federal government to fund, maintain and create social programs, up until Woodrow Wilson, it clearly was not. The argument is in fact would social spending be better controlled and more effective on a local or regional level. That has now been debated for over 100 years in this country.
3. Yet a third over simplification, yes there are Dems that want everything from Government like Manna from heaven, and Republicans who think if you are not a southern Baptist you are doomed to hell. The overwhelming majority of both is closer to the middle.
Picking one is only necessitated when people blindly follow a candidate solely on party. My point is every statement from a candidate needs to be checked for accuracy and context, and when they are wrong, they need to be taken to task by not only the opposition but those who support them.
My statement in the original post is more philosophical than toward any party.
Mark; I'd have to say that
Mark; I'd have to say that while of course a candidate's positions on the issues is much more important than his affiliations or perceived ideology. But, I still believe as i wrote last week that character matters the most, who cares what someone's positions are if you don't believe them?
Mark, our two party system is
Mark, our two party system is simplistic, the parties are essentially the same. You might believe there is a large difference between Mitt and Obama but, I know there isn't. They do the same thing, they say basically the same things. It amazes me how very similar Obama turned out to Bush. I know cable news wants to work up how the world is coming to an end if either is elected. I don't buy it and I can't see how my life could ever change one bit regardless. Mitt is a very good lier. You can tell me all day, how he isn't a centrist governor from Massachusetts and that won't make it so.
It's time to come to grips with the idea we are being made fools of by the system. I'm voting for Obama but, I'll sleep OK if Mitt wins. Nothing will change besides military spending levels. More of the same....
Charlie, it's good to see
Charlie, it's good to see that you've joined the side of the independents.
I agree with you on that
I agree with you on that Dave, however, sometimes how a candidate presents his case is very telling as to his or her character.
Do they take a heartfelt position, or do they recite party talking points?
Do they attempt to belittle their opponent or do they take the candidate to task on their position?
These are telling indicators of character.
Given that we do not have a
Given that we do not have a parliamentary system or instant runoff voting, there being two major parties make sense. Do you really want a candidate being elected with less than a third of the vote? That's the reality that comes with having strong and large third parties.
Parties in general make sense because people want to politically be affiliated with people who have in general the same beliefs, the two parties becoming 'big tents' means that people from across their respective spectrum's can feel comfortable in them, which negates the need for large third parties.
In New York we have electoral fusion, which enables third parties to become active in a meaningful way beyond just playing the spoiler. People with ideologies not fitting into the major parties or with a mix of views have a real opportunity to make a difference with them. They can cross endorse other major or minor party candidates and form electoral coalitions. There are of course times when third party campaigns come about from these parties, but more often than not they are resolved through the primary process. I do not believe that fusion is at all the bad actor that it is made out to be.
I also respect registered independents....and I will say that people who have a moderate core matter and should be more prominent on our political scene.
Charlie my position is as
Charlie my position is as simple as this.
If we truly want to affect the two party systems, the political reality is that the two parties both have far more money behind them than any third party candidate can match. Remember Ross Perot, a poor man by no means yet the best he was able to accomplish was to deny Bush 41 a victory, he really had absolutely no chance of winning.
Conversely, the TEA PARTY, whether one believes in their positions or not, did in fact shake up the Republican party in 2010 to the point where congressional candidates thought to be a shoe in were unseated at the primary level. For better or worse, the Tea Party did in fact bring change to the GOP.
Let us suppose that every time in this Internet age, that a candidate is barraged on a site like this one fact based retort (Not Talking Points) and not based on party rhetoric but based on sincere questions as to the validity of their position. That essentially is calling a candidate to task, and in essence is asking a candidate to show us his/her character.
An example is a few days ago when Howard presented an opportunity to post questions to Kathy Hochul on her positions, was it two or three posters, only two or three responses with a question. What if there were ten questions posed?
The same would go for Chris Collins, what if the questions we ask take him off of his talking points, he is trying to brand Representative Hochul with the Hochul/Obama care label, well Mr. Collins how is that so? Representative Hochul repeatedly has said that she is not fond of certain mechanisms for covering the cost of Obama care, and would roll back certain taxes and charges included in the law. Fine Mrs. Hochul assuming that you are successful, how then would you replace the funding mechanisms?
In this new blog driven era, we do have a way of getting those questions through, just like Mr. Collin’s slip of the tongue last week got picked up in the blogosphere, so too will at least some of these questions find their way from one blog to another and yes some will even get picked up by more traditional media.
An apathetic approach will not. If we shrug our shoulders and say oh well, it doesn’t matter what we say, life will go on etc. The we can bitch and moan all that we want and there is no hope for affecting a change in the party system.
I am not naïve, I realize that 90% of people barely pay attention to politics until just a few weeks before the election, but I also can see the possibility that if a few average folks keep asking the questions, in this Internet age there is more hope those grass roots type pressures can be asserted toward both parties, and the only real hope of a third or fourth party rest with a similar grass roots type movement.
If we sit back and let the living room Internet pundits however, spew talking point after talking point unchecked, we then we get the government that we deserve.
Electoral fusion is not the
Electoral fusion is not the problem Daniel, this is beyond that, the question in the poll was based on how conservative Mitt Romney, I say who cares. For that matter how liberal Barack Obama is who cares there as well.
It is even beyond two parties or three parties, it is about calling candidates to task about their positions in my opinion, the 30 second sound bite, the carefully choreographed talking points are both staples in state and national politics, less so in local politics. To Charlie’s point, I say it is because of these that make Charlie’s position about little difference between candidates a valid argument. All talking points actually do is give the hyper-partisan validity.
If we want a truly issue based election and eventual President, Senator or Representative, we as citizens have to take our heads out of the sand and challenge every talking point regardless of which candidate or party presents them.
A liar only gets over on you if you accept the lie as truth; a politician becomes a liar when he isn’t taken to task.
We become sheep, when we allow the Politician to become the liar.
Mark, speaking as someone who
Mark, speaking as someone who voted for Ross Perot twice, my votes had nothing to do with the other two candidates. Who cares who lost? Ross was the last guy who was truly different and could have won. Talk about a guy without vetted talking points.
Charlie, we are not that far
Charlie, we are not that far off, if Blue Dog Democrats were again viable, the Democrats would have faired better in 2010.
No one can expect any candidate to be 100% on issues with virtually any voter.
My reference to Ross Perot wasn't about either candidate, it was that as rich a man as he was he coould not match the better funded Republican and Democratic party.
As far as the TEA Party, I said,'For better or worse they affected change' nothing to do with right or left.
My point is that APATHY is something both parties count on, you stir up your base, you drag people to the polls, and you only need a few of the apathetics to win, That is the drag on our political system, that is what actually makes much of your point valid.
Just as you say the TEA PARTY drove the GOP to the right, the Leftist activist drove the Democrats to the left.
Mark, we usually are not that
Mark, we usually are not that far away. I deleted that last paragraph before you posted because I thought it went off topic. It's obvious you got my intent.
You are a good man Charlie
You are a good man Charlie Mallow, When we agree we agree, when we disagree at least we seem to get each other's point.
Mark, Just a point. Ross
Mark,
Just a point. Ross Perot was doing very well his first time. Then he dropped out of the race, made some really weird statements, later got back in the race, and never made up the lost ground. He came in third.
After that, while he ran a second time, he never had a chance.
We'll never know how well he would have done had he not dropped out the first time.
Looking back with what we now
Looking back with what we now know about politics, maybe there was something to those "dirty tricks" Perot used to talk about. He was running head first at both political machines and had no one on his team that specialized in spin. What the public interpreted from that time was he said strange things.
Howard, I know a majority of
Howard, I know a majority of people feel as I do but, being socially progressive and fiscally conservative isn't a good fit for either party. The recent polarization has left very little room for Blue Dog Democrats and Companionate Conservatives in their parties. Although, maybe in the end moderates like Mitt still have a chance, thats if they are good liers.
Point taken John, Would be
Point taken John, Would be interesting to see how that race would have played out if the Interner Blog was as prevelant then as it is now, but well we truly will never know.
Independently minded voters
Independently minded voters would be better represented if they stopped being members of either party and started voting for like-minded candidates instead of buying into the false notion of "lesser of two evils."
If we keep voting for the lesser of two evils, all we're left with is evil.
Howard, the lack of a real
Howard, the lack of a real field of candidates drives voting for the lesser of two evils. Neither candidate fits the mainstream. People are forced to pick and choose a candidate that they might agree with only half a platform. Do away with the two party system and force these people to find common ground to establish a government. Then the balance of power can shift away from these small loud fringe groups.
Does it matter in New York
Does it matter in New York State who you vote for President?....Obama has New York locked up...The electoral college's votes for this state are his....Unless you are in a so called swing state the vote is already set ....Do away with the electoral college and you might see more independent candidates......The whole campaign for president is centered around winning each State's electoral vote ..Popular vote as a whole doesn't matter..
Charlie, there will be more
Charlie, there will be more than two choices on the presidential ballot.
And if we did away with fusion voting in NY, there would likely be more than two candidates in NY-27.
Of course, I said it before, we should do a consolidated primary where all candidates appear on a single ballot, Republican and Democrat and third party.
Mark, if you do away with the
Mark, if you do away with the electoral college, all that one would need to do is campaign in California, Chicago, NYC, Boston, DC and Southern Florida. It would simply make swing states out of them on a permament basis.
What people forget is that we DO NOT live in a pure Democracy, we live in a Democratic Republic. If you really think about it, Hugo Chavez and Adolf Hitler were initially elected in pure democracies.
Where the electoral college has gone wrong is that since the early 1900's the sovernty of the states has steadily eroded and ceded to the sovernty of the Fed.
How can any state be
How can any state be assessed, locked-in? At least 40% of registered voters lack motivation to even vote. The GOP candidate won the nomination by attrition. The Democratic candidate is a lame duck with a 31% approval rating. The choice is essentially, Obama Vs Obama-light. Endorsement of most third party candidates remains pending. Terry Jones has yet to gear up his independent challenge machine- his rhetoric sliced far to the right of Romney and stewed in Florida garum. It's a given, some Texas billionaire with the bug is lying low, timing an eleventh hour ascendency.
Mark - That's simply not
Mark - That's simply not true, the metropolitan areas of the major cities do not even come close to being a majority of the vote for the rest of the nation or of the population. Eliminating the electoral college will force candidates into places where they've never had to campaign, including in areas in non-swing states with decently high voting percentages, like Western New York. When's the last time you've seen a major Presidential campaign roll into Bismark, North Dakota or Providence, Rhode Island?
And no, Hitler wasn't, he was
And no, Hitler wasn't, he was elected in a parliamentary system.
http://www.nationalpopularvot
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers/m7.php
It is so challenging debating
It is so challenging debating with you Daniel; you truly are a worthy adversary. That said, the link that you post are by an advocate of the popular vote, they maintain a position, I will get back to that, but there is a constitutional position as well.
Initially, the intent was to have the state assemblies choose the President with the intent of establishing the states as the prime conduit from the Federal Government to the people. It also was a safety valve to prevent mass voter fraud and more importantly election by hysteria. The college was established as a compromise during the constitutional convention because many of the founders felt that by entrusting state legislatures, a president would be too beholding to a given states special interest and to reduce political favoritism by the Presidency toward any individual state.
Now as to the link that you provided by those advocating popular election, their entire argument is based on pure numerical rational, what is not pointed out is that slightly less than 80% of our population lives in Urban areas, slight more than 20% in rural areas. The needs and concerns of are vastly different between the two. Contrary to their claim that a popular vote would not affect fly over country, one need only view the last 3 electoral results maps. All three showed substantially a difference in results between the urban states and the more rural states. The breakdown of electoral votes that is posted on that sight while numerically accurate does not reflect the regional concerns in a federal election.
The most important aspect of the argument that the site you posted is this, it further places federal importance ahead of individual state. When you do that, you pretty much remove another layer of control in lieu of an ever more powerful fed.
I do not say that changes along the way are not prudent, the 12th Amendment made distinct changes to the Electoral College and clauses in the 14th and 24th Amendments addressed other possible issues in the Electoral College to guard against voter disenfranchisement.
I would actually like to see some changes as to how electors are dispersed. In most states, the winner of the state election gets all of the state's electoral votes. In two states, Maine and Nebraska, however, the winner of the state only gets two votes, one representing each Senator. The other electoral votes are distributed according to the (Presidential race)winner of each congressional district in the state. If apportionment like this were applied in most states, the entire swing state concept would be of much less importance.
Advocates of most political positions tend to over simplify the result. There are many consequences of a constitutional amendment that go unnoticed until enacted.
So much would I like to see
So much would I like to see an open primary, anyone with the wearwithal to run, then a general election based on the top two.
Can you imagine if all 50 states did that what a congress might look like?