Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The 'Transparent' 'Untouchable'...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Nuff Said!

    Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
      We will certainly agree on that. I can't recall a good Dem in my lifetime.

      A third party would make things worse, IMO. It would either split one of the existing parties (making the other supreme) or create yet more deadlock and empowering the bureaucracy to greater heights.

      The key is that you need 218 Reps, 51 Senators, and a Prez to pass a bill. A party that can muster less than that is just a dead weight.

      The mistake IMO is the Hollywood-based image of a decisive politician. That's a joke-only the machines get anything done. Especially in this era of multi-million dollar campaigns and the need for grass-roots political organizations.

      The real villain in US politics are not the parties, not the politicians, but the voters. Reagan was the last President elected by a majority of eligible voters. Voter turnout is simply terrible, and as long as it remains low, nothing is going to change.
      I thought about this, and I think in a way you could say there can be a third party although not literally. Every vote that comes up in Congress or the Senate will have it's party-line voters, so to me the third party is that group which votes contrary to their party because for whatever reason they feel strongly enough about an issue that they think they need to 'swim upstream'. I think the one thing that voters can possibly do to affect the system is to vote for candidates who demonstrate their willingness to vote against their party when they feel it's best for their constituents. The math you state here is not really arguable but to think that these two parties are the best we have and the best we're ever going to have is depressing. I think as voters our responsibility is always going to be to find those candidates who won't simply vote along party lines every time, otherwise we're just wasting our time and we should start thinking about revamping the whole system.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Steve573 View Post
        I thought about this, and I think in a way you could say there can be a third party although not literally. Every vote that comes up in Congress or the Senate will have it's party-line voters, so to me the third party is that group which votes contrary to their party because for whatever reason they feel strongly enough about an issue that they think they need to 'swim upstream'. I think the one thing that voters can possibly do to affect the system is to vote for candidates who demonstrate their willingness to vote against their party when they feel it's best for their constituents. The math you state here is not really arguable but to think that these two parties are the best we have and the best we're ever going to have is depressing. I think as voters our responsibility is always going to be to find those candidates who won't simply vote along party lines every time, otherwise we're just wasting our time and we should start thinking about revamping the whole system.
        I wouldn't vote for a candidate who strays from the party line.
        Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
          I wouldn't vote for a candidate who strays from the party line.
          I get it, I just don't like it. I'm trying to come up with a logical way to describe what I mean and it isn't easy, but here goes:
          Every issue that comes up for a vote before a governing body has (logically) a 'correct' vote and an 'incorrect' vote that can be made. I know it's not that black and white but you could say there's always one side or the other that has an opinion that's closer to 'correct' than the other side. Presumably the correct vote is also the vote that's best for the people being represented.
          Now, here comes issue X. Let's say the left is wrong about this one (big surprise) and the right is correct. The votes are being cast, and there are a few representatives from the left that know the right is correct about this particular issue. They know that the position of the right is more beneficial to the people of their district or state, yet they feel obligated to vote with their party anyway. Therefore, they literally voted against the greater good, against the welfare of the people they represent. Personally, I would rather have a representative who votes for me, who believes they represent me and if it just so happens that in my particular district that goes against their party so be it.
          I don't vote that way myself: I don't just check every box next to Republican candidates regardless of their track record or qualifications. In my state there's a box you can check to save time, that allows you to just cast a blanket vote for all the candidates in your party with one mark. I have always felt that anyone who does this shouldn't be allowed to vote: they're not thinking it through. I think I'm better off voting for the best candidate even if they're not in my party. Maybe I'm just being naive and unrealistic and your description of the political machine being necessary is more accurate to what really goes on. If that's the case I would have to say the system is broken and we need to rethink what we're doing.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Steve573 View Post
            I get it, I just don't like it. I'm trying to come up with a logical way to describe what I mean and it isn't easy, but here goes:
            Every issue that comes up for a vote before a governing body has (logically) a 'correct' vote and an 'incorrect' vote that can be made. I know it's not that black and white but you could say there's always one side or the other that has an opinion that's closer to 'correct' than the other side. Presumably the correct vote is also the vote that's best for the people being represented.
            Now, here comes issue X. Let's say the left is wrong about this one (big surprise) and the right is correct. The votes are being cast, and there are a few representatives from the left that know the right is correct about this particular issue. They know that the position of the right is more beneficial to the people of their district or state, yet they feel obligated to vote with their party anyway. Therefore, they literally voted against the greater good, against the welfare of the people they represent. Personally, I would rather have a representative who votes for me, who believes they represent me and if it just so happens that in my particular district that goes against their party so be it.
            I don't vote that way myself: I don't just check every box next to Republican candidates regardless of their track record or qualifications. In my state there's a box you can check to save time, that allows you to just cast a blanket vote for all the candidates in your party with one mark. I have always felt that anyone who does this shouldn't be allowed to vote: they're not thinking it through. I think I'm better off voting for the best candidate even if they're not in my party. Maybe I'm just being naive and unrealistic and your description of the political machine being necessary is more accurate to what really goes on. If that's the case I would have to say the system is broken and we need to rethink what we're doing.
            Interesting you think people should not be allowed to vote. Not exactly in the spirit or nature of the system itself, where voting is a right.

            The simple fact is that it takes 218 Reps, 51 senators, and a Prez to pass a bill. That is the system, and its certainly not broken.

            You need to let go of the Jimmy Stewart 'one man goes to Washington' nonsense that Hollywood sells. The fact has always been that by design the USA is ruled by consensus within a group at every level.

            That's the way it was designed, that's the way it works. If you want something else, I suggest emigration.
            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

            Comment

            Latest Topics

            Collapse

            Working...
            X