Printable View
No, because voter's desires are often directly opposed to one another's. You can't satisfy everybody, but of course that's what whim panderers try so hard to do :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphim
I generally vote for people who say they'll satisfy me. I guess that makes me part of the problem :(
:HJ
I guess I'm going to go ahead and throw this out there: I don't think we need parties AT ALL. call me an idealist, but I think we'd be genuinely better off without the two hulking, cronyistic, good-old-boys clubs that run the country right now. neither one cares about the American public nearly as much as they do about hurting the other party.
my solution:
outlaw parties all together. each candidate can just tell people what they believe, and we can vote for them based on that. 'nuff said.
(warning, this entire post is more or less entirely lifted from my personal political manifesto.)
I think we should go back to the old way of doing a massive popular vote... not have 2 parties, primary etc. Have x number of candidates running, top choice is Pres, 2nd choice is VP etc. Not really a well formulated idea.
I don't like parties.. and my American History recollection is that neither did the founders... unfortunately Washington was the only president to get elected outside of the party system.
Is this avalable in bookstores?Quote:
Originally Posted by jockeys
In our current system, it seems we vote based on the lesser of two evils. My choice is made not for who I like, but for who i believe will do the least harm.
McCain is an imperfect man in an imperfect system, but his flaws IMHO are less of a threat to our way of life than the other choices.
Some people will say that I'm not voting for Obama because he's black, that's not true... I'd happily vote for an african-american president but Colin Powell isn't running. :shrug:
The flip flopping that we often see is not a politician simply changing his or her mind, it's a dishonest politician saying what they think we want or need to hear in order to gain more power.
The problem this creates (besides broken promises) is that we don't actually know what this politician will do in a given situation. If Obama says he is going to do something, he needs to actually mean it. The American people need to look at the repercussions of this action, and decide if it is time to put a man in office who is planning on taking our country in that direction.
If Clinton promises to reduce taxes, to one group, and promises another increased government support, where is she going to get the money? Keep in mind overspending, and creating a deficit is no better than raising taxes... You just end up passing the cost on to our children.
It's difficult enough chosing a candidate if they are honest with us. When you get a candidate who contradicts himself, and makes too many flips, it's impossible for the people to know who they are electing.
We all have the ability to think freely, the politicians are counting on the predictable American laziness when they make these promises. They are counting on the Media outlets to keep their promises circulating in the right communities, and to hide these contradictions.
The flip flopping politicians are confident that the vast majority of voters are just dumb enough to believe all the rhetoric, and lies... Or as my favorite saying goes. "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."
The mob mentality, get enough people chanting your name, and rule the world.
It's sad but true, and it's not going to change until we learn to step out of the group, and think.
If you wish to step outside of the group there are third parties with damn good people, why vote for a lesser evil, do yourself a favor, research and vote 3rd party.
I wondered why I was such a miserable old misanthrope. I guess this is why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike_ratliff
With the current party system a third party is practically a wasted vote. Even worse, if the majority of voters who are dissatisfied with a candidate were to vote 3rd party, it would almost assure a victory to the unwanted candidate.
You have to play the game to some degree. Perhaps if the American people were to get disgruntled enough this would work, but until then, the only real choice is red or blue...
I wish this weren't the case, but in all reality a vote for a 3rd party is essentially a vote for "none of the above". It shows your dissatisfaction with the options given by the Dems and Republicans, but it won't get you far.
Right now the only 3rd party candidate who has any chance would be Ron Paul, and he's still too far out to be seriously considered. (although I do like some of his ideas)
Then sir, I will vote for none of the above. Whoever you vote for will be second best even in your own eyes.What will you win if your candidate succeeds? Second best, even if he is the winner? I cant see myself doing this. I would rather lose doing the right thing than win the wrong thing, I do not see how the wrong thing will ever serve us.
Changing your mind after due consideration of the facts is one thing. Pandering to who ever you happen to be talking to in the hopes that you might fools someone into voting for you is another thing entirely. Most political flip-flopping is actually pandering, not a good thing.