dnc (1 Viewer)

[Banana]

If McCain really wants to do us a favor, he could just select Obama as Veep. Or maybe Obama can drop the bidet and have McCain as veep.

IOW, doesn't matter who you're going to vote because they're fundamentally and essentially same; only with a different set of priorities.

 

[Alisa]

If McCain really wants to do us a favor, he could just select Obama as Veep. Or maybe Obama can drop the bidet and have McCain as veep.

IOW, doesn't matter who you're going to vote because they're fundamentally and essentially same; only with a different set of priorities.

What's IOW?

I think it does matter who you're going to vote for. In past elections, I would have agreed that the choices are fundamentally the same, but I just don't think that is true this time around.

McCain wants to keep on doing everything that has got us into the mess we are in, from "winning" the war, to starting more wars, to subsidizing oil drilling and companies that outsource, to extending tax cuts for the super wealthy.

In contrast, Obama knows that the war is unwinnable and that we need to have an exit strategy, he believes in diplomacy rather than the so-called 1% doctrine, he wants to fund research for alternative energy, and stop giving the wealthy obscene tax cuts at a time that our national deficit is at an all time high.

The contrast between the two seems pretty stark to me.

 

[Banana]

What's IOW?

In other words.

I think it does matter who you're going to vote for. In past elections, I would have agreed that the choices are fundamentally the same, but I just don't think that is true this time around.

Doh! I meant to word it as "doesn't matter which major party you vote for"

If more people voted their conscience, rather than going with either two major party, then we wouldn't be in the mess. Even better, overhaul the voting system so we don't end up with two party system.

Come November, I will vote, but not for either.

 

[Alisa]

In other words.

Doh! I meant to word it as "doesn't matter which major party you vote for"

If more people voted their conscience, rather than going with either two major party, then we wouldn't be in the mess. Even better, overhaul the voting system so we don't end up with two party system.

Come November, I will vote, but not for either.

I agree that there is no major difference between the parties - they are both controlled by corporate interests. My hope is that Obama will fight against their clutches (doing as well as can be expected so far), while it is clear that McCain is not pushing back at all.

So I'm curious, who will your vote go to? Bob Barr? Nader? Paris Hilton?

Unfortunately, if I were to vote my conscience, I wouldn't be voting at all, because there isn't a single candidate out there that truly represents what I stand for. But since I feel it would be unamerican to not vote at all, I will vote for the next best thing.

The voting system ofcourse needs to be overhauled, the whole thing is beyond ridiculous at this point, with candidates begining their reelection campaigns the day after they are elected, and inordinate amounts of time spend raising obscene amounts of money just to sway undecided voters in a few swing states.

 

[Banana]

I wouldn't count on Obama coming in without strings; he has quite lot of lobbyists under his belt and is just as bad as McCain.

My vote is for Ron Paul. I'll have to write it in if needed.

What many people don't get is that even if nobody agreed on whom to vote for, but voted their conscience anyway and suppose Obama won but with only 20% and McCain coming in at 19% with the rest of votes going to everyone else, Obama would be much more cautious and tiptoe through his administration because the lack of support is much visible. Not voting at all is not same because it can be just interpreted as "Whoever wins is fine by me." while voting for the small guys who won't win is "Okay, you win, but we don't like you very much and will be keeping close eye on you."

 

[Alisa]

I wouldn't count on Obama coming in without strings; he has quite lot of lobbyists under his belt and is just as bad as McCain.

My vote is for Ron Paul. I'll have to write it in if needed.

What many people don't get is that even if nobody agreed on whom to vote for, but voted their conscience anyway and suppose Obama won but with only 20% and McCain coming in at 19% with the rest of votes going to everyone else, Obama would be much more cautious and tiptoe through his administration because the lack of support is much visible. Not voting at all is not same because it can be just interpreted as "Whoever wins is fine by me." while voting for the small guys who won't win is "Okay, you win, but we don't like you very much and will be keeping close eye on you."

Ah, I should have guessed. What state are you in? Last I heard, Paul was on the ballot in a fair number of them . . . The thing that really bothers me about Ron Paul is that he doesn't believe in progressive taxation, and as someone who makes not such a great salary, that is something that is very important to me. I simply can't afford to pay 30% of my income in sales tax.

I agree with you in theory, but it will never happen. You will never get 40 or 50 percent of the population to vote their conscience - 10% are hard liberals who will never look at a conservative candidate, and 10% are hard conservatives who will never look at a liberal candidate. Then you have another 20% that are frustrated with the paucity of the available options because all the candidates are on the fringe instead of in the middle where most of the people are. Then there is the remaining 50% of the population who is too ignorant, too lazy, or just too apathetic to care at all.

 

[Banana]

Erm, Ron Paul *doesn't* support taxes. He wants to do away with taxation *entirely*. He was quoted as being okay with FairTax replacing the IRS, but only because it was less taxation than the present system, but ultimately, he wants to do away with personal income tax entirely; he regards this as stolen money.

I once read an article that espoused what I perceived to be quite radical: if you want to vote, you have to pay to do so. I was horrified as this seems to run contrary to what we know about democracy. However when I read more, I understood the position: if vote costs nothing, then it costs nothing to waste the vote. By requiring a fee in order to vote, it places real value on the vote and makes people want to carefully consider the choice they make, just as they would with a car or house. A free vote could easily go to the better-looking candidate or one who parts his hair this way, not the other way. Even the stupidest people understand the economy. It also neatly solves the other problem of voters wanting pies in sky. You see politicians chasing all wrong kinds of people; people on Medicare, people on welfare, people wanting a tax credits, and therefore they promise everything, but simply do not have the means to support any of such programs. No big deal! We'll just tax our way to propensity!

Sooo... I'm wondering if charging a fee to vote may give voters a jolt and think twice.

 

[Alisa]

Yes, the so called "fair" tax is what I am scared of - I can't afford to pay upwards of 25% of my income in sales tax. On what funds does Paul plan to run the government? What does he want to tax instead of income?

Tax our way to propensity? Thats a new one - maybe that can be Paul's new slogan

Interesting concept, I like the idea of people putting a little more thought into their votes, and I think there are far too many people who just vote out of blind allegiance to a party, or out of unrealistic fears based on slimy advertising. But I can't agree that would be a good idea. It sounds too much like going back to the old days when you had to be a landowner to vote. Even the poorest person in America should be able to vote.

I actually think they should do the opposite - charge a fee for NOT voting. I consider it to be not only a right but a duty to vote. You know how when you are in Highschool, they MAKE you register with the selective service? I think they should MAKE you register to vote too. Then, if you don't vote, I think you should have to pay an extra $20 on your driver's license renewal or something like that. I think this might improve voter turnout, which would benefit the candidates that appeal to the lower classes (a good thing IMO, apparently a bad thing in yours ).

 

[Mike375]

Voting is compulsory in Australia and as a result these is about a 95% turn out.

We also have preferential voting although in most cases this means the vote does wind up with a candidate from one the two major parties.

If America had our system then Gore probably would have one in 2000 because the majority of voters who voted Nader would probably have Gore as number 2 and Bush number 3. Thus Gore would have got most Nader's vote. Likewise, Bush Snt would have probably beaten Clinton.

 

[georgedwilkinson]

It's fascinating that you would think (or Ron Paul thinks) the government could run without a income or other tax. How would the government do what it's chartered to do?

If you replaced all taxes with a fee to vote, even fewer people would vote, raising the price to the point that only the very wealthy would vote. I think we've been there before.

I'm not saying I disagree, per se, just want to know how you (or Ron Paul) would settle these troubling issues.

 

[MSAccessRookie]

Voting is compulsory in Australia and as a result these is about a 95% turn out.

We also have preferential voting although in most cases this means the vote does wind up with a candidate from one the two major parties.

If America had our system then Gore probably would have one in 2000 because the majority of voters who voted Nader would probably have Gore as number 2 and Bush number 3. Thus Gore would have got most Nader's vote. Likewise, Bush Snt would have probably beaten Clinton.

I had not thought of it that way, but what you are saying is most likely very true. I would like to point out to Banana, that using the same logic, a vote for Ron Paul is much more likely a vote taken away from McCain, and therefore a vote for Obama by Default.

 

[Alisa]

Voting is compulsory in Australia and as a result these is about a 95% turn out.

We also have preferential voting although in most cases this means the vote does wind up with a candidate from one the two major parties.

If America had our system then Gore probably would have one in 2000 because the majority of voters who voted Nader would probably have Gore as number 2 and Bush number 3. Thus Gore would have got most Nader's vote. Likewise, Bush Snt would have probably beaten Clinton.

How does Australia require people to vote? What happens if you don't vote?

I agree, a proportional voting system gives better results. But in the U.S., there is a compounding problem which is that we are not based on one person-one vote. It is all based on delegates and the electoral college and all of the districts are so gerrymandered that there is really only a very small portion of the population that get's to effect the outcome of the election.

 

[Banana]

Yes, the so called "fair" tax is what I am scared of - I can't afford to pay upwards of 25% of my income in sales tax. On what funds does Paul plan to run the government? What does he want to tax instead of income?

Here's a hint of what he intends to do with government:

BTW, income taxes is relatively recent addition to our country; it was introduced in Civil War; prior to then, the Federal government did just fine with tariffs and corporation taxation.

Paul wants to drastically shrink the government and return the control back to states instead of sucking on Federal's teats. A good thing, IMHO.

Tax our way to propensity? Thats a new one - maybe that can be Paul's new slogan

In case I wasn't clear, that would be other politicians, especially Obama, slogan.

Interesting concept, I like the idea of people putting a little more thought into their votes, and I think there are far too many people who just vote out of blind allegiance to a party, or out of unrealistic fears based on slimy advertising. But I can't agree that would be a good idea. It sounds too much like going back to the old days when you had to be a landowner to vote. Even the poorest person in America should be able to vote.

I actually think they should do the opposite - charge a fee for NOT voting. I consider it to be not only a right but a duty to vote. You know how when you are in Highschool, they MAKE you register with the selective service? I think they should MAKE you register to vote too. Then, if you don't vote, I think you should have to pay an extra $20 on your driver's license renewal or something like that. I think this might improve voter turnout, which would benefit the candidates that appeal to the lower classes (a good thing IMO, apparently a bad thing in yours ).

The problem as I see it is that it doesn't still compel the people to not just throw the vote at the smoothest talking politican that comes their way because there isn't an economic incentive/penalty involved.

And I'm not sure why you think I don't want lower classes people not to vote; the whole idea is that it's easy to vote YES! on everything that benefits us and thus live beyond our means. I mean, everyone knows better than to splurge and buy that giant 120-inch plasma tv worth $9998 when they have to keep up on the rent (well, most of people anyway...) but if bank or landlord didn't mind if they were behind and could wait indefinitely, then I can bet you that everyone would be buying those TVs left and right. Why shouldn't it apply to politics?


Mike, does Aussies have the option to say "None of Above" if they're unhappy with the candidates?

 

[Mike375]

There is a fine of about $50.

Your voting system is basically the same as Australia or England as well as many other countries in the sense that "areas or electorates" are won or lost. Thus if 51% of the vote or 100% of the vote is obtained then area or electorate is won. Thus if a candidate won 100% of the vote for and area then he can't pass 49% of the vote to another area.

The preferential system tends to mean minor parties/independants are much more active and especially with the Senate. However, members of your two major parties do not toe the party lines as strongly as they do in Australia. What happens with preferential voting is that "extremes" in either of the two major parties end up leaving and running with minor parties.

The political spectrum covered form the far left of your Democrats to the far right of Replublicans is wider than for our two major parties as the minor parties tend to pikc up the far left and far right.

In general, at least in Australia, the preferential voting system favours minor parties that are the "academic lefty type" as these voters are usually more politically aware as to how/why to vote than the voters who would support the parties from the Right.

 

[Banana]

It's fascinating that you would think (or Ron Paul thinks) the government could run without a income or other tax. How would the government do what it's chartered to do?

Mainly because it was originally chartered to do *little*; defenses and protecting rights of minority, pretty much. Everything else should be left up to states.

As I've posted in world government thread, smaller government in smaller unit works better for humans in general because we are more likely to be passionate about highway construction in our backyard than with raising tariffs for nation and by keeping issues local, people can easily decide the best for themselves, and work out what works the best solution, rather using one-size-fits-all, and in a sense puts the government in realm of free market; if a government flounders, others will be able to find better government somewhere and emulate it rather than float/sink as one large nation.

If you replaced all taxes with a fee to vote, even fewer people would vote, raising the price to the point that only the very wealthy would vote. I think we've been there before.

That would be a real problem, yes. I'm not entirely convinced myself that it would fix things, though I find it appealing because it uses economic stimulus to direct the vote and I think everyone knows that it's always money that talks.

 

[Banana]

I had not thought of it that way, but what you are saying is most likely very true. I would like to point out to Banana, that using the same logic, a vote for Ron Paul is much more likely a vote taken away from McCain, and therefore a vote for Obama by Default.

Sorry, I missed that post earlier.

The trouble is that we are only given one vote, and there is very little we can say with one vote.

If I and the rest of 10% voted for Ron Paul, while Obama gets 46% and McCain gets 44%, Obama wins but not with a majority so his administration has to keep their hands tied without pissing off the 54% that doesn't want him in office.

OTOH, if I and the rest of 10% voted for McCain because Paul is going to lose no matter what, McCain would then win with 56%, which is seemingly a majority but in actuality, he only won 44% of votes. In fact, this is the situation we're in with Bush; it seems as if Bush has the support of majority but this is not the case.

By continuing to vote for who we *really* want in office, it becomes more clearer that we are not happy with the winner and the winner has to spend the four years cajoling to those voters, rather be deluded in thinking that majority backs him.

Preference voting would certainly make this clearer; if McCain won on a bunch on 2nd preference or 3rd preference votes, then I would imagine he'd be under similar constraints.

Tactical voting plain just does disservice to everyone, obfuscates the message sent to the powers that be, and the other voters.

 

[pbaldy]

I only have a minute, but I'm another strong Ron Paul supporter (his recent book is pretty good). At the caucuses, I was pleasantly surprised to see the age range of those that supported him (it's wide, with a lot of young people).

I think people are beginning to realize that the current system is unsustainable. Instead of the mainstream questions of "should we spend your tax dollars on A or B?", they see that there's a third option, "should we spend your tax dollars at all?"

Gotta go, and Banana says it better anyway!

 

[sandy6078]

By continuing to vote for who we *really* want in office, it becomes more clearer that we are not happy with the winner and the winner has to spend the four years cajoling to those voters, rather be deluded in thinking that majority backs him.

Do you think that the party in office would really care that 54% of the voters didn't really want him in office (with the thinking that they are in control and will do whatever the party interests are)?

 

[dkinley]

It doesn't matter who is President - it's Congress that gets things done. Wanna complain about gas prices? Who gave the President the authority for war? Wanna talk about taxes? ... Look at who runs the Congress and who has the majority control.

Personal taxes all go to the Fed anyhow, none of it is put back into public. Ron Paul gets my ticket for his education (even though noone cares about an educated voter look where it got Ross Perot). Voting is dictated by emotion. Barak has the same appeal as Bill Clinton - they are both very charismatic and can get emotions going for him.

In terms of 'change' ... what's he gonna change? The Dems run Congress! And this work hard .. work hard they have been talking and on the other side .. free this free that. You can't have it both ways .. the money has to come from somewhere.

If I work hard, I can do it for myself, I don't need government. If I do nothing, then yes I need government. There we go .. reward those that don't work but go after the taxes of those that do. Positive reinforcement for negative action - smart. Doesn't matter, they play on emotions.

I say give the rich a tax break. If each individuals bill for our government is $123,000 per year, I am sure alot of rich people would love to just cut a check and walk away instead of paying in several millions of dollars to cover those that didn't work. I believe in equalizing the playing field but when Hilary says something like ".. for the common good." That is straight up Marxist.

Back to change ... he is gonna change this and that and the other. What he won't answer is "How?". Sometimes, change is not progressive.

But then again, all I have just one vote.

-dK

 

[GaryPanic]

back to voting systems -
here in the Uk - the majority vote doesn't work very well - we ahve about 650 regions and you can win a region on say 40% of the vote - but certain areas can win on 85% you still only win that area - if you added up all the votes from all of the regions and then used that to say elect a leader - then the Labour goverment would be dire sh*t.. Labour wins in some marigal seats by not a lot and wins in a few areas by a majority- however if you look at the votes in total - conservative would win in the sheer number count - in my home town - labour didn't even field a canidate (for those in the UK - Tunbridge Wells) - the monster raving looney party would get more votes - howver T-Wells is historically blue (con) - labour is losing out its key areas espiceally in the South (Hastings/Folkestone) - come the next election there will be a chagne of goverment -(still crap, but a different type of crap)
what would of been good is if Boris Johnson had been leader - you Yanks are gonna love him - to describe him

well imagine a retire army major - and a bubbling fool - that would be your first in pressions - however he is a very clever man - and speaks a lot of sense - just not in a clear way (I know this sound weird , but he is a no bullshit sort of person - in an old english mans body - and a brilliant sense of humour - but proone to puttinghis foot in it (Liverpool , i don't think will ever forgive him)