Printable View
OK, so for political candidates, being labeled as a "flip-flopper" is a "bad" thing.:shrug:
I don't understand this.
If someone has an opinion to begin with (example: wedges rule, full hollows are garbage!), and later come to re-consider their opinion and change it, why is that such a bad thing?
Isn't the important part that the person gets to the right answer in the end?
Please ellucidate me all-knowing SRP Conversation board!:bow
Well changing your mind is fine, but to change it back and forth on a daily or weekly basis smacks of pandering to a crowd rather than seeing the light.
But aren't elected officials also supposed to represent Us, the people? So, if they do indeed pander to our whims, isn't that what they should be doing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Orange
If they bait you with one line of thinking to get your vote and once recieving that vote then flip flop(switch) so that they may please some one else, seems dishonest to me. State your intentions (after serious thought) and stick to them. This would show stability rather than someone off on a whimsical fancy or self promotion.
Changing your mind after you learn the details, or after considerable thought on a topic, is not a bad thing. Expressing a different view simply because you think it will get you elected is a bad thing.
Well, once again, there is a difference between doing what the people want and claiming to have seen the light. Many candidates claim to believe one thing, then claim to believe another depending on the crowd they're speaking to. Candidacy is about presenting your beliefs, not representing your constituents (since you preseumably don't have any yet). I trust that a president is going to go along with his or her beliefs rather than what they perceive the American people want. And that is why flip-flopping is a bad thing:D
The other way around. WE ask the questions so that we can elect someone who we think will represent our viewpoints.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphim
True enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottS
I guess I was thinking that not only candidates, but elected officials get the dreaded "flip-flop" title. I can certainly see where, as someone running for office they should make their intentions known. I can now see why that is a bad label to have as a candidate.
What's bad is "Both ways Barack" :D
Well personally I think people consider flip-flopping a bad thing because it means that they cannot pigeon-hole the person in question. We like to compartmentalise, and someone changing their mind on an issue throws out the bean count.
James.
Especially if the have been seen to endorse all three halves of an issue in a short period of time depending upon their audience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo
Since he is running for the office and hasn't yet been elected, I want to know what HIS core beliefs are! Not what his polling data says he ought to tell THIS particular crowd.
Try to keep the thread neutral. To balance things out: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/flipflopsQuote:
Originally Posted by Navaja
McCains flip flops are at 70, and some of them are fairly major, like not being able to vote for his own immigration bill, and his big reversal on the Bush tax cuts. He also caved big time on torture.
Obama's biggest flip flops have probably been of public finance and NAFTA, but even so, he seems a ton more stable than McCain (who I think might actually be having trouble remembering what his stances are).
Interestingly, the Obama folks rarely talk about the McCain moving stances, because they're not going tremendously negative. McCain is starting to go so negative that he's coming across as a whiner.
+1. I don't like Obama, but I really don't like the big negative campaign push by McCain. I understand the need to pull a few skeletons out of the closet from time to time, but for it to be a constant negative push should just be embarrassing to McCain. At least it's a clear picture of who he is as a person- nothing special with nothing personally getting him anywhere, so he may as well make Obama look bad so people will vote lesser of two evils.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottS
"...so people will vote lesser of two evils."
Quick Orange
There is a lot to what you say! Sadly, we've had to do that too many times in the last twenty years.
The fact is that "The lesser of two evils," is STILL evil!
There's much already said here I agree with.
The crux of the thing to me, is that there is a large difference between flip-flopping and changing one's views after careful consideration.
flip-floppers generally follow polls or the media closely, and change their opinion to match what they believe is the more popular opinion.
Those who change their opinions are a little different IMHO.
Personally I want to know what a candidate is made of/how he feels on issues I find important; he may have to make serious decisions concerning me and my countrymen wrt those issues, after all.
We aren't a democracy but a representative republic. If the candidates only did what their current audience at the time wanted, we could replace all of congress with an automated voting system and let all the citizens vote on every issue. Since we aren't one, we vote for the person we think best capable of making those decisions on our behalf. With a flip-flopping candidate, he may seem to support ideas one agrees with, but ultimately no true decision can be made wrt if the candidate will or will not properly represent the people who voted for him.
John P.
And that is why I will vote 3rd party, some people say "well, you cant win!" but what kind of prize(booby) do I get voting for the mainstream candidates? At least I will know that I've done the best that could be done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Jeeter
IMHO the party system is past its usefulness. It has become almost coercion on a massive scale, I think. Rather than vote for the candidate we like, the big parties tell us "but you are only throwing your vote away" and strong arm many into voting for the same canned hams they keep giving us time and again.
I have to look carefully at the different candidates out there, because at the moment I dislike both of the front runners, albeit for differing reasons. Except for that globalist thing. Both of them have that going against them, as does our current President for that matter. I still agree with him on some issues, but that takes away from them hugely IMHO.
John P.
According to Drudge, McCain just flip flopped on his previous pledge not to raise taxes:
" WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain drew a sharp rebuke Monday from conservatives after he signaled an openness to a higher payroll tax for Social Security, contrary to previous vows not to raise taxes of any kind.
Speaking with reporters on his campaign bus on July 9, he cited a need to shore up Social Security, saying: "I cannot tell you what I would do, except to put everything on the table."
He went a step farther Sunday with his reponse on a nationally televised talk show to a question about payroll tax increases.
"There is nothing that's off the table. I have my positions, and I'll articulate them. But nothing's off the table," McCain said. "I don't want tax increases. But that doesn't mean that anything is off the table."
That comment drew a strong response Monday from the Club for Growth, a Washington anti-tax group. McCain's comments, the group said in a letter to the Arizona senator, are "shocking because you have been adamant in your opposition to raising taxes under any circumstances."
Indeed, McCain frequently has promised not to raise taxes.
At a July 7 town-hall meeting in Denver, he said voters faced a stark choice between him and Democrat Barack Obama.
"Sen. Obama will raise your taxes," McCain said. "I won't."
Well, everybody knows how to vote for the ideal candidate, unfortunately that really doesn't exist. So at the end it's a representative democracy at work - the candidate with most support wins and then gets some time to do things that may be unpopular.
The question that is interesting to me is - does this system improve in the long term? But what is 'long term'? After all there's only roughly 200 years that this thing has been running - do you think overall it's getting better, or it's getting worse? Of course there is much idealization of the past, but if you try to look objectively at the political system, does it seem to be evolving in a positive direction or in a negative?
As far as flip-flopping goes, to me this seems to be the result of where the political system is right now. Like it or not negative campaigning is more powerful - just look at all these political threads and 'two evils' posts. It's much easier for us to be negative, but I don't think any of us has a magic recipe that would solve all the problems. I can look at a problem and all proposed solutions and say 'I don't like this' and 'I don't like this either', but at the end of the day I have to pick something.
So with this in mind the politicians are often in the position of choosing to either put a negative spin on whatever their opponent is doing, or their chances of winning are getting rather low. McCain of all people knows how this works and he would rather be the victmizer than the victim.
I would really like if people would be thinking critically except of just blindly buying whatever soundbites their favorite media serves them. Unfortunately from all I've seen that is not going to happen and the politicians who can raise most money will get elected. All I'm saying is that the politicians don't actually spin things in one way or another because they want to - they do it because it is necessary to get elected.
A flip-flop is a bad thing because it demonstrates a real lack of virtue in an individual. It isn't a reasoned, gradual change in opinion or even a populist response motivated by a clear and quantified change in your electorate's demands; it is an often hasty change, of no little consequence, in one's voting on legislation in reaction to political events, like a party leader's demand, a media sponsored opinion poll, lobbying by a special interest group, etc.
When you campaign, for example, on lowering taxes and you're elected you are given a mandate to lower taxes. If you don't, if suddenly on a certain bill you vote to raise taxes, then you flip-flopped. Think the electorate has changed its opinion? Hold a referendum, use a large opinion poll, knock on doors. Chances are nothing has changed though, changes like that usually require a change in demographics or a major economic or political event in a people's history.
Also, people have this idea that a candidate should share each and every one of their ideas. That's bogus. That's why politicians lie, because people won't vote for somebody that isn't everything to them. How can an honest man compete with a liar when people want the liar, because he's exactly what they want when he talks to them? There are honest candidates but there aren't enough realistic people to prop them up.
Parliament really shows how people, in general, are.
I think the best way to improve the system would be to open its doors wider. The way things are set up right now we have two political parties who can act in concert only when it makes it less likely that any third party will be able to rise up.Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
Our voting system is set up to penalize anyone who votes for a third candidate as well. The system is set up not to select for the preferred candidate but to select for the one who has the most original positions. For example, if you had three candidates, two with similar positions, and one out in left field, the guy out in left field could win the election with only 34% of the vote. That would mean that the least preferred candidate would actually get into office. I think we ought to have run off elections, where you either number your selection from worst to best giving your preferences, or have say anyone taking less than 20% or the lowest vote count eliminated from contention, then a re-vote until you are down to a clear favorite.
As far as money goes, the best way to get over the money is to open the field but track the donations. I don't care how much any one person gives to a campaign, I just want to know who is supporting whom. Right now the system makes it important to and easy to hide your donors, thats a problem. You can tell a lot about a person by seeing who his friends are.
Money and the third part disenfranchisement brings up another point. Did you know that there are states where a candidate can't get on the ballot, no matter how many people want him there, unless he has raised a certain amount of money in political donations? Hows that for blatant money in politics.
I would think that there should be at least a half dozen viable parties available so that there would be true competition amongst them and probably a greater amount of actual representation of the people, more like coalitions in congress, where being the majority does not necessarily makeyou the king. As it is now you have a choice between one faulty dogma or the other. Pick your poison.
While there's some merit to the criticism of the two-party system, I think between the primaries and election, we get plenty of choice, particularly this year. Take the Republican primary-- we've got everything between pure libertarian all the way to liberal (well, at least that's how he governed Massachusetts.) If a third party candidate would have any chance at all of actually winning, he'd certainly have enough oomph to start to change his closest aligned party from within. It might take some time, but our whole government seems to be designed such that major changes take place slowly-- which, IMO, is a good thing.
You're right Mr. Tim, politics needs to be transparent. You're also right that a proportional representation voting system would help break up the two-party system that many countries using a plurality voting system are plagued with.
Better two than one, though, right?
When control in a Parliamentary government flips, changes can be fast and furious. Not necessarily great in terms of stability. The founding fathers were well aware that they could have set up such a system, and opted not to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiggamore
I don't know what you're talking about.
Parliament is just another word for a legislative assembly. Maybe you mean the Westminster system? The Westminster system uses a plurality voting system, just like the United States, and often suffers from the same two-party problem.
Proportional representation can create instability, especially when power isn't shared between the legislative assembly and the executive. But, that isn't the case in the United States. Not only do you have a strong executive, but also a strong judiciary, and a strong citizenry. This system of voting would more likely create a legislative assembly plagued by legislative gridlock as opposed to rapid change.
A multi party system works great when the coalition parties can agree on which the main goals and issues.
The fact that coalitions can and will change makes them watch each other and parties don't need absolute majority to have influence. A major 30% party needs coalition partners, and not all parties are compatible. So an additional 20% and a 10% party would suffice for a majority coalition.(*)
This would also discourage flip-flopping because it isn't really needed. you don't have to change your opinion every time the absolute majority changes its attitude, because you don't need them. Instead, your party following is what counts, and they don't like sudden changes.
(*)The big catch with coalitions is that they have to consist of parties that can work together, or at least agree on a government mandate.
Belgium is suffering from a severe internal problem right now. the coalition parties have chosen goals that are mutually exclusive, and there is a lot of infighting, blackmailing and open hostility that prevents the formation of a federal government mandate.
It is so bad atm that our federal government is a joke. :shrug:
But at least, things can change within a moderate number of years (6 between elections).
Whereas any 2 party system will never change because there is no room within the electorate for 3d parties.
Thank you Bruno! I was hoping someone in your situation would adress the coalition debate. From your description of it, its sounds more appealing than the two parties that we have at the moment. Even if your coalition govt. is grid locked, so much the better as they are leaving the citizens alone to live their lives, peace and prosperity will flourish! What we have here now simply means one party will screw you one way and the other party will screw you the other, they simply take turns. All the debate and hoopla is about who gets to do what first and in what method. All the debate between citizens during the election is simply the people arguing over who will make the best pimp.
I see flip flopping as not being able to tell the people what you really stand for, but talking with forked tongue or out of both sides of the mouth at the same time. Not being entirely honest, so no-one knows what to expect.
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.