Who's Your Pres?
Let me see:
Option 1: Voting for somebody you want, which builds support among the general population and influences the big two because they see how many votes they've lost.
Option 2: Voting for somebody that you really don't want and having your vote be among the thousands to tens of thousands of "excess" votes in your state or seeing your less-loathed candidate lose by thousands to tens of thousands of votes.
Which vote was wasted?
If everybody I know that has said, "I'd rather vote for {insert a 3rd Party candidate}, but they'll never win." actually voted for the candidate, we'd have more non-Republocrats at the national level.
The reasons there aren't more national level 3rd party candidates are cheifly because of: the unfair election laws that cause 3rd Parties to blow huge chunks of their budget and resources just to get on the ballot every year, the $40 million (EACH) that the Republocrats get for thier conventions and the acompaning free advertising (masqurading as news) that goes along with it, the admittedly BIpartisan CDP that uses federal funds that are supposed to be used in a NONpartisan fashion, excludes non-Republocrat candidates from the farce of a debate series and the free advertising that goes along with it, the intentional spiking of 3rd Party candidates by all major media outlets (this is NOT an exageration, do some simple research, you'll be appalled at the news that is intentionally ignored and the censoring that major networks (especially Fox) inflict upon the guests of their 'news' shows), the majority of elligible voters aren't registred, the majority of registered voters don't, the majority of actual voters are intellectually lazy and want to have their information spoon fed to them instead of doing their own research, the majority of voters don't want to think about the issues and draw their own conclusions, they want some supposed expert to distill the info into sound-bites, and assign a predetermined label, so they can check a box without really thinking about one of the most important choices they can make in their lives.
Ray
Option 1: Voting for somebody you want, which builds support among the general population and influences the big two because they see how many votes they've lost.
Option 2: Voting for somebody that you really don't want and having your vote be among the thousands to tens of thousands of "excess" votes in your state or seeing your less-loathed candidate lose by thousands to tens of thousands of votes.
Which vote was wasted?
If everybody I know that has said, "I'd rather vote for {insert a 3rd Party candidate}, but they'll never win." actually voted for the candidate, we'd have more non-Republocrats at the national level.
The reasons there aren't more national level 3rd party candidates are cheifly because of: the unfair election laws that cause 3rd Parties to blow huge chunks of their budget and resources just to get on the ballot every year, the $40 million (EACH) that the Republocrats get for thier conventions and the acompaning free advertising (masqurading as news) that goes along with it, the admittedly BIpartisan CDP that uses federal funds that are supposed to be used in a NONpartisan fashion, excludes non-Republocrat candidates from the farce of a debate series and the free advertising that goes along with it, the intentional spiking of 3rd Party candidates by all major media outlets (this is NOT an exageration, do some simple research, you'll be appalled at the news that is intentionally ignored and the censoring that major networks (especially Fox) inflict upon the guests of their 'news' shows), the majority of elligible voters aren't registred, the majority of registered voters don't, the majority of actual voters are intellectually lazy and want to have their information spoon fed to them instead of doing their own research, the majority of voters don't want to think about the issues and draw their own conclusions, they want some supposed expert to distill the info into sound-bites, and assign a predetermined label, so they can check a box without really thinking about one of the most important choices they can make in their lives.
Ray
Then get off your intellectual butt and do some research about the 3rd Party candidates. Find the one that fits your views and vote for them. Sure, your prefered candidate may not get elected, but, your vote won't be wasted (unused, among the millions of 'excess' votes or one of the millions of votes that don't matter because you live in a state (all of them but Maine) that practices the all-or-nothing system of assigning electoral votes), you've made your opinion known, you'll make it easier for other voters to follow their conscience down the road, you'll make it easier for 3rd Parties to get on the ballot next time, you'll make it harder for the media to ignore non-Republocrat candidates, you'll make the Republocrats notice and modify their policies towards the views of the 3rd Parties when they see how many votes their losing, etc..Guest wrote:Based on what I know, I hate both candidates equally and am choosing not to vote because I don't want to take part in whichever lying retard gets into the white house.
Ray
Hehe...most kids just vote based on what their parents say. And then all they parents do is repeat what they heard from the media. Have your own opinion. Just make sure its backed by facts and evidence. "simply because he isnt Bush" isn't a valid reason.
"I tried sniffing coke once, but the ice cubes stuck in my nose"
What an interesting thread... Well.. time for me to put in a few words... now.. please note, I'm not voting age, nor am I american... so ignore everything following if you wish:
Being a Canadian, I also live in a democratic country, and we learn about voting and all that shit at school.... now.. from what I've seen on media up here.. I had no clue that there was even a recognised 3rd party... I thought it was just Kerry and Bush, both of whom I do not like... Bush mainly because he's a blithering idiot that gets fed everything he speaks, both for the reason that the president never writes his own material, and for the reason that if they did, he couldnt as he probably, quite simply, can't. Now... why do I, a lowly canadian, dislike Kerry as well? Why wouldnt he be better? (which I notice is the arguement of some)... maybe I just havent watched enough coverage, but everything I see Kerry saying... none of it is about how he will fix things.... It's all about how Bush has screwed this up, and that up, blah blah, Iraq was a mistake, I would've done better blah blah.... not once have I heard Kerry speak of the things he WOULD do to make a better America. Based on this, if I were american, and could vote, it wouldnt be for either.
And now to address Philmac mostly~ How is voting for the green party throwing a vote away dude? If you think the green party should be at the head of the country... say so. That's how democracy works... you cast the votes for the candidate you want to govern you, and the majority of votes for X candidate gets the position. So even if the Green Party doesn't get in, your vote supported thier cause and ideas. Maybe an increase in votes over the next election year will put them into a recognised 3rd candidate spot.. then the next one they might be a main runner.. right? Simple concept... democracy eh.
The other thing I was going to touch on was about the coverage again... someone mentioned that those sitting at home getting their information through TV is the worst... agreed... I did a giant project on The U.S.A. War on Iraq... a big research project about issues between the two countries.. all taken from newspapers around the world... now.. the most valuable thing I learned from that project is how biased this shit is... American newspapers, especially the ones based closest to Washington DC, its ABSOLUTELY And OBVIOUSLY controlled by the american government...your best bet for information on anything is online, or in another country. Now obviously.. dont go to iraq to learn stuff about america.. that'll be biased too..but good, unbiased FACTS can be learned.. and often provide the best information to the inquirer.
Anyh00... duno if i stayed on topic.. or if anything I said is relevant, or if anyone cares.. but.. there you have it.. : shrugs and wanders off.... :
Being a Canadian, I also live in a democratic country, and we learn about voting and all that shit at school.... now.. from what I've seen on media up here.. I had no clue that there was even a recognised 3rd party... I thought it was just Kerry and Bush, both of whom I do not like... Bush mainly because he's a blithering idiot that gets fed everything he speaks, both for the reason that the president never writes his own material, and for the reason that if they did, he couldnt as he probably, quite simply, can't. Now... why do I, a lowly canadian, dislike Kerry as well? Why wouldnt he be better? (which I notice is the arguement of some)... maybe I just havent watched enough coverage, but everything I see Kerry saying... none of it is about how he will fix things.... It's all about how Bush has screwed this up, and that up, blah blah, Iraq was a mistake, I would've done better blah blah.... not once have I heard Kerry speak of the things he WOULD do to make a better America. Based on this, if I were american, and could vote, it wouldnt be for either.
And now to address Philmac mostly~ How is voting for the green party throwing a vote away dude? If you think the green party should be at the head of the country... say so. That's how democracy works... you cast the votes for the candidate you want to govern you, and the majority of votes for X candidate gets the position. So even if the Green Party doesn't get in, your vote supported thier cause and ideas. Maybe an increase in votes over the next election year will put them into a recognised 3rd candidate spot.. then the next one they might be a main runner.. right? Simple concept... democracy eh.
The other thing I was going to touch on was about the coverage again... someone mentioned that those sitting at home getting their information through TV is the worst... agreed... I did a giant project on The U.S.A. War on Iraq... a big research project about issues between the two countries.. all taken from newspapers around the world... now.. the most valuable thing I learned from that project is how biased this shit is... American newspapers, especially the ones based closest to Washington DC, its ABSOLUTELY And OBVIOUSLY controlled by the american government...your best bet for information on anything is online, or in another country. Now obviously.. dont go to iraq to learn stuff about america.. that'll be biased too..but good, unbiased FACTS can be learned.. and often provide the best information to the inquirer.
Anyh00... duno if i stayed on topic.. or if anything I said is relevant, or if anyone cares.. but.. there you have it.. : shrugs and wanders off.... :
Good post Graydon. The U.S. has a number of established political parties, but because of various reasons, including unfair campaign finance laws, they usually don't get any attention. Three of the better known "third" parties are Libertarian, Green Party, and the Constitution Party (CIK provided links to all three official websites in an earlier post).
You're right about the media -- especially American Media, which is more focused on revenue than on reporting the news. Major news outlets constantly recycle and rehash news stories while at the same time ignoring other stories. Many smaller radio stations in this country do their "weather reports" by simply having the DJ read some second hand info found on the internet. News about American companies is also heavily edited because those companies are often paying for the advertising that supports the news shows.
The best way to be a media consumer is to assume there is no such thing as an unbiased source. You should never think you are getting the whole story from any one source. Personally, I try to look at three or four distinctly different news sources on most days, but this isn't always easy because of time. But, it's the only way I can feel like I'm getting at least a reasonable amount of balanced facts.
You're right about the media -- especially American Media, which is more focused on revenue than on reporting the news. Major news outlets constantly recycle and rehash news stories while at the same time ignoring other stories. Many smaller radio stations in this country do their "weather reports" by simply having the DJ read some second hand info found on the internet. News about American companies is also heavily edited because those companies are often paying for the advertising that supports the news shows.
The best way to be a media consumer is to assume there is no such thing as an unbiased source. You should never think you are getting the whole story from any one source. Personally, I try to look at three or four distinctly different news sources on most days, but this isn't always easy because of time. But, it's the only way I can feel like I'm getting at least a reasonable amount of balanced facts.
Mauglir
Well I didn't know my thread would come to be so long. Anyway, you all posted good points, although if you're voting for a pres you want, just keep in mind that ALL presidents(past, present and future) will, had and always will have their share of faults and failures. 
"I tried sniffing coke once, but the ice cubes stuck in my nose"
As long as we continue with the "lesser of two evils" approach, we will forever be forced to choose between equally bad candidates. If we ever what to see any real change, we'll eventually have to start giving "3rd party" candidates greater support.
"Fighting for peace is like f***ing for virginity." --Larry Lang
"Those would be willing to sacrifice a little bit of liberty for a little bit of security, deserve neither." --Benjamin Franklin
"Those would be willing to sacrifice a little bit of liberty for a little bit of security, deserve neither." --Benjamin Franklin
True, but this goes both ways. Among this particular knee-jerk group, I'd say 50% vote the same way as their folks without thinking at all, and the other 50% vote the opposite way as their folks without thinking any further than contradicting their parents.TopGunZ wrote:Hehe...most kids just vote based on what their parents say.
Ray
There are several, but 1) There's intentional media spiking, which keeps them off the air, even when they make news. 2) The Associated Press (AP) ignores them, and most news outlets are too lazy to do a real reporting and just parrot the AP press releases. 3) The government hands out supposedly NONpartisan funds in a BIpartisan fashion (partially because some of the third parties feel that the American public shouldn't be required to foot the bill for their activities, so they'd refuse the funding if it was offered) and the courts (until recently*) have refused to even hear any cases. 4) The essentially scripted, free-advertising farse some people call "The Debates" are organized by an admittedly BIpartisan organization (the CDP) that is illegally using NONpartisan funds and intentionally excluding the non-Republocrats. 5) 3rd Parties are forced to blow huge chunks of their resources just to get on the ballot every year because of laws that don't apply to the Republocrats.Graydon wrote:now.. from what I've seen on media up here.. I had no clue that there was even a recognised 3rd party...
The list goes on.
Nope, they're controlled by the American dollar and (unfortunately NOT) delusions of grandeur. First, they don't cover things that might hurt their circulation. Most Americans don't want the issues fully discussed, so they can make their own decisions. They want somebody to assign it (whatever it is) a label and release just enough sound-bites to make the label stick. This way, the intellectual couch potatoes can have their knee-jerk reactions and make what passes for a decision without even thinking. Second, the folks running the major media outlets feel that the US population is too stupid to realize this (unfortunately, there's only evidence to support their view) and that they are almighty enough that they can actually sway the elections to their benefit (again, there's plenty of evidence that this is unfortunately true).American newspapers, especially the ones based closest to Washington DC, its ABSOLUTELY And OBVIOUSLY controlled by the american government...
Ray
*A US Circuit Court said that the FEC couldn't just ignore complaints about the CDP, they had to actually investigate them. The decision fell short of requireing it be done before the current election, nevermind before the so-called debates.
There are several, but 1) There's intentional media spiking, which keeps them off the air, even when they make news. 2) The Associated Press (AP) ignores them, and most news outlets are too lazy to do a real reporting and just parrot the AP press releases. 3) The government hands out supposedly NONpartisan funds in a BIpartisan fashion (partially because some of the third parties feel that the American public shouldn't be required to foot the bill for their activities, so they'd refuse the funding if it was offered) and the courts (until recently*) have refused to even hear any cases. 4) The essentially scripted, free-advertising farse some people call "The Debates" are organized by an admittedly BIpartisan organization (the CDP) that is illegally using NONpartisan funds and intentionally excluding the non-Republocrats. 5) 3rd Parties are forced to blow huge chunks of their resources just to get on the ballot every year because of laws that don't apply to the Republocrats.Graydon wrote:now.. from what I've seen on media up here.. I had no clue that there was even a recognised 3rd party...
The list goes on.
Nope, they're controlled by the American dollar and (unfortunately NOT) delusions of grandeur. First, they don't cover things that might hurt their circulation. Most Americans don't want the issues fully discussed, so they can make their own decisions. They want somebody to assign it (whatever it is) a label and release just enough sound-bites to make the label stick. This way, the intellectual couch potatoes can have their knee-jerk reactions and make what passes for a decision without even thinking. Second, the folks running the major media outlets feel that the US population is too stupid to realize this (unfortunately, there's only evidence to support their view) and that they are almighty enough that they can actually sway the elections to their benefit (again, there's plenty of evidence that this is unfortunately true).American newspapers, especially the ones based closest to Washington DC, its ABSOLUTELY And OBVIOUSLY controlled by the american government...
Ray
*A US Circuit Court said that the FEC couldn't just ignore complaints about the CDP, they had to actually investigate them. The decision fell short of requireing it be done before the current election, nevermind before the so-called debates.