DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Democracy and the Electoral College System
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 40 of 40, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/10/2008 01:53:32 PM · #26
But the problem is, if everyone voted their primaries on the same day then the candidates would spend the bulk of their time campaigning in the "key" states and the "unimportant" states would never see a candidate, or only in passing. The theory behind spacing out the primaries is to give the candidates time to campaign everywhere. This is a much more prominent issue in America than it would be in a much smaller country, obviously.

R.
 01/10/2008 01:55:43 PM · #27
Originally posted by Bear_Music:


Right. As I said earlier, "people are sheep". They tend to see the earlier primaries as indicative of who's "leading", and they tend to jump on the bandwagon. Nobody wants to support an unelectable candidate. But in the abstract, how bad is this? SHOULDN'T the primaries serve as a weeding-out process to focus attention and energy on the front-runners? I don't know. Certainly, this is why so many states, this time around, have shifted their primaries to WAY earlier in the year than they used to be. It's a strange situation.

R.


But why are people sheep? It is because the fourth branch of government, the media, has now fallen like our federal government under corporate control. Not only has the media fallen flat at its job of checking our government, but in the last few decades really taken a lead role in agenda setting. No candidate without media coverage, no matter how well financed, is going to get into the public consciousness. For example ABC excluded Dennis Kucinich from the recent debates.

The media would much rather have the âsheepâ distracted by brainless sports or reality TV, and tell us their real news like Britney Spears cars was towed.

01/10/2008 02:08:36 PM · #28
Originally posted by hyperfocal:

But why are people sheep? It is because the fourth branch of government, the media, has now fallen like our federal government under corporate control. Not only has the media fallen flat at its job of checking our government, but in the last few decades really taken a lead role in agenda setting. No candidate without media coverage, no matter how well financed, is going to get into the public consciousness. For example ABC excluded Dennis Kucinich from the recent debates.

The media would much rather have the âsheepâ distracted by brainless sports or reality TV, and tell us their real news like Britney Spears cars was towed.


IMO, "the people", collectively, get what they want. There is no longer a clear dividing line between the media and the people. If there ever was. We are become a nation of sheep, a nation governed by fear.

R.
 01/10/2008 02:14:52 PM · #29
is there anything within the system that actively prevents the US from having more than two parties?
 01/10/2008 02:19:15 PM · #30
I believe one or other of the founders decried the existence of political parties. So when you say 'the system' it is something that parties themselves have brought about. Maybe.
 01/10/2008 02:21:07 PM · #31
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:


Right. As I said earlier, "people are sheep". They tend to see the earlier primaries as indicative of who's "leading", and they tend to jump on the bandwagon. Nobody wants to support an unelectable candidate. But in the abstract, how bad is this? SHOULDN'T the primaries serve as a weeding-out process to focus attention and energy on the front-runners? I don't know. Certainly, this is why so many states, this time around, have shifted their primaries to WAY earlier in the year than they used to be. It's a strange situation.

R.


But why are people sheep? It is because the fourth branch of government, the media, has now fallen like our federal government under corporate control. Not only has the media fallen flat at its job of checking our government, but in the last few decades really taken a lead role in agenda setting. No candidate without media coverage, no matter how well financed, is going to get into the public consciousness. For example ABC excluded Dennis Kucinich from the recent debates.

The media would much rather have the âsheepâ distracted by brainless sports or reality TV, and tell us their real news like Britney Spears cars was towed.


Good point, but the debates have rules. And to be a participant in the debates past the first few primaries you have to have received a certain minimum percentage of the vote, or poll to a certain percentage ona national level. Otherwise, there would be 50 candidates in every debate. How helpful would that be?
 01/10/2008 02:23:25 PM · #32
Originally posted by frisca:
is there anything within the system that actively prevents the US from having more than two parties?


Not exactly. But..... individual states have laws making it difficult for people to get their name on ballots if not a member of the two standard parties.
 01/10/2008 02:25:52 PM · #33
Originally posted by frisca:
is there anything within the system that actively prevents the US from having more than two parties?


Not specifically, in fact, George Washington in his exit speech from office warned about the dangers of a 2 party system.

The 2 party system isn't that much different than coalition building in other democracies. In order to get a majority you have to appeal to at least half of the electorate. And party policy is built around this. Many politicians don't agree 100% with the party platform they represent, but the agree to it so they can appeal to a larger audience.

Most politians have 3 or 4 core issues that they hang their hats on. The other issues, they go along with the party platform so that they can get elected and push through their priorities.

Message edited by author 2008-01-10 14:26:19.
 01/10/2008 02:54:51 PM · #34
Originally posted by frisca:
is there anything within the system that actively prevents the US from having more than two parties?


actually, the US does have more than two parties. We have the Green Party, Libertarians, whatever Perot's party is, etc. We just have two parties that are very powerful and voters conditioned to not consider "unwinnable" candidates... a self-fulfilling prophecy. I voted for Nader, not in 2000, but in 96, when I was frustrated with Clinton. I don't consider it a "wasted vote" because the more votes lesser parties get, the more powerful they become. But most people want to be on a team that has a chance of winning.
 01/10/2008 03:01:27 PM · #35
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by frisca:
is there anything within the system that actively prevents the US from having more than two parties?


actually, the US does have more than two parties. We have the Green Party, Libertarians, whatever Perot's party is, etc. We just have two parties that are very powerful and voters conditioned to not consider "unwinnable" candidates... a self-fulfilling prophecy. I voted for Nader, not in 2000, but in 96, when I was frustrated with Clinton. I don't consider it a "wasted vote" because the more votes lesser parties get, the more powerful they become. But most people want to be on a team that has a chance of winning.


Canada suffers a bit from this too. I would have voted for canada's 3rd party (The NDP) because I was upset with what the liberals were up to, but because I knew that if the vote was split between the libs and the NDP, the Conservative party would get a majority, so I voted liberal, and the Conservatives ultimately got a minority government. It seems politics is geared toward "with us or against us" sort of voting.
 01/10/2008 03:56:11 PM · #36
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by frisca:
is there anything within the system that actively prevents the US from having more than two parties?


actually, the US does have more than two parties. We have the Green Party, Libertarians, whatever Perot's party is, etc. We just have two parties that are very powerful and voters conditioned to not consider "unwinnable" candidates... a self-fulfilling prophecy. I voted for Nader, not in 2000, but in 96, when I was frustrated with Clinton. I don't consider it a "wasted vote" because the more votes lesser parties get, the more powerful they become. But most people want to be on a team that has a chance of winning.


It's not just an issue of being on the side that has a chance of winning - sometimes we don't want to increase the chances of the party we like the least. And that is what every election I have voted in has been - NOT voting for the candidate you like the most, but voting AGAINST the one you like the least.
 01/10/2008 04:22:02 PM · #37
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by frisca:
is there anything within the system that actively prevents the US from having more than two parties?


actually, the US does have more than two parties. We have the Green Party, Libertarians, whatever Perot's party is, etc. We just have two parties that are very powerful and voters conditioned to not consider "unwinnable" candidates... a self-fulfilling prophecy. I voted for Nader, not in 2000, but in 96, when I was frustrated with Clinton. I don't consider it a "wasted vote" because the more votes lesser parties get, the more powerful they become. But most people want to be on a team that has a chance of winning.


It's not just an issue of being on the side that has a chance of winning - sometimes we don't want to increase the chances of the party we like the least. And that is what every election I have voted in has been - NOT voting for the candidate you like the most, but voting AGAINST the one you like the least.


The small parties, while not having any real chance of winning the election, can have a profound effect on the outcome. Ralph Nader's unexpected numbers in the 2000 election more than anything else swung the election to Bush. If he hadn't been on the ballot, most folks believe Gore would have won Florida and therefore the pesidency.
 01/10/2008 04:27:48 PM · #38
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
IMO, "the people", collectively, get what they want. There is no longer a clear dividing line between the media and the people. If there ever was. We are become a nation of sheep, a nation governed by fear.

R.


Well that may have been true and while I don't deny the government fosters that mentality (as well as the people around you) there's no excuse left to be influenced by it. The people have access to a wealth of information that has never been available before. If you're a sheep today it's by choice.
01/10/2008 04:33:41 PM · #39
Originally posted by yanko:
The people have access to a wealth of information that has never been available before. If you're a sheep today it's by choice.

Couldn't agree more. I would add though that typically those who take any interest in politics, look to their own biased sources of information and ignore the opposing views anyway. I try not to make any judgements until I have heard both sides and I will admit, it takes effort to be objective.
 01/10/2008 05:02:30 PM · #40
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by yanko:
The people have access to a wealth of information that has never been available before. If you're a sheep today it's by choice.

Couldn't agree more. I would add though that typically those who take any interest in politics, look to their own biased sources of information and ignore the opposing views anyway. I try not to make any judgements until I have heard both sides and I will admit, it takes effort to be objective.


True. Although I hired someone else to do this work for me. :P
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 04:12:32 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 04:12:32 PM EDT.