Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Massachusetts: 2004 Presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry is seeking a 4th term. He is favored to win reelection in such a heavily Democratic state.

Michigan: Sen. Carl Levin is a heavily favored to win reelection.

Minnesota: Sen. Norm Coleman is running for his second term. He is considered endangered. Al Franken will be the likely nominee of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, and polling has shown a very tight race.

Mississippi: Sen. Thad Cochran is favored to win reelection due to all focus being put on the special election (below)

Mississippi (special): Roger Wicker was appointed to the Senate after Trent Lott resigned in December. The Democratic nominee will be Fmr.Gov. Ronnie Musgrove. Polls show a tight race.

Montana: Sen. Max Baucus is not considered endangered.

Nebraska (OPEN): Sen. Chuck Hagel is retiring. The Republican nominee will likely be Fmr. Agriculture Sec. Mike Johanns. Despite having potentially strong nominees, the Democrats could not convince them to run. Johanns will likely win election.

New Hampshire: Sen. John Sununu, according to polls, is likely to be unseated in November by Former Governor Jeanne Shaheen (D)

New Jersey: Despite Sen. Frank Lautenberg's relative unpopularity, Republicans have yet to find a strong candidate.

New Mexico (OPEN): Sen. Pete Domenici is retiring due to health reasons. All three Congressmen are running for the seat: Tom Udall (D), and Heather Wilson and Steve Pearce (R). Udall is favored to win the general election.

North Carolina: Despite Sen. Elizabeth Dole's unpopularity in the Tar Heel State, Democrat have not found a strong opponent in State Sen. Kay Hagan.

Oklahoma: Sen. Jim Inhofe is favored to win reelection. The Democratic nominee is State Sen. Andrew Rice.

Oregon: Sen. Gordon Smith is considered vulnerable. Speaker of the House Jeff Merkley will be the likely Democratic nominee.

Rhode Island: Sen. Jack Reed has been called the "safest incumbent of the 2008 election cycle."

South Carolina: Sen. Lindsey Graham is favored to win reelection. No strong Democratic candidate has emerged.

South Dakota: Sen. Tim Johnson, despite suffered an aneurysm-like brain trauma in December of '07, is running for re-election and although he was potentially vulnerable, no strong Republican opponent has emerged.

Tennessee: Sen. Lamar Alexander is unlikely to face significant opposition in his re-election bid.

Texas: John Cornyn is potentially vulnerable. The Democratic nominee is State Rep. Rick Noriega.

Virginia (OPEN): Sen. John Warner is retiring. Fmr. Governor Mark Warner (D) (no relation) is almost certain to win election over Fmr. Governor Jim Gilmore (R)

West Viriginia: Sen. Jay Rockefeller is favored to win reelection.

Wyoming: Sen. Mike Enzi is favored to win reelection due to all focus being put on the special election (below).

Wyoming (special): John Barrasso was appointed to the Senate after the death of Craig Thomas. Barrasso is favored to win election due to the strong Republican nature of the state.

Continues below....

i want that black one to win

I think that was the joke.

Plus that's the general consensus of a lot of people.. especially the black community.. most of which don't even know what his policies are...

Originally posted by Strangelove
You quite obviously did not read a word I just wrote. Racist!

Thanks a bunch, Strangelove.

This makes it a lot easier than searching teh interwebz. I will be checking back for updates.

The U.S. Congress
100 Senators;
435 Representatives;
No Clues ................

Strangelove, what do you think are the chances of Gore slipping in as suggested by some Florida politician (I believe)?

There's no way Gore would do it.

Not only would it be silly, as no one has voted for him, he probably wouldn't WANT to.

In all honesty and likelihood, it will probably be Obama vs McCain. Clinton can't win the delegates back unless she wins huge in every single one of the upcomming primaries, and she's unlikely to catch the popular vote as well. And the super dels probably don't want to end up betraying both the delegates and the popular vote and take the nomination away from the person the people voted for.

Gore??? I heard of dark horse candidates, never of ghost candidates though

Originally posted by BigRed
Strangelove, what do you think are the chances of Gore slipping in as suggested by some Florida politician (I believe)? It's a bad strategy, trying to be nominated from the floor.

and not too democratic

Originally posted by anaconda
and not too democratic Not necessarily, it just doesn't work.

Originally posted by anaconda
and not too democratic How?

Some poeple will not like me for saying this, but has America ever had a candidate that was popular in the US and the rest of the world before? Because I think Obama might actually be the first.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Some poeple will not like me for saying this, but has America ever had a candidate that was popular in the US and the rest of the world before? Because I think Obama might actually be the first. How is Obama more popular in the US and abroad than others?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Some poeple will not like me for saying this, but has America ever had a candidate that was popular in the US and the rest of the world before? Because I think Obama might actually be the first.

Plenty. You just aren't thinking back far enough. Though a lot depends on which country you're speaking of, because "like/dislike" among other countries is largely dictated by political climate.

...

Also, good stuff Strangelove. Do you think the Dems will retain their majority in the House/Senate? They do currently have the majority, right?

to be nominated on the floor aint to democratic because it aint the people who would elect the person, the other nominees have campaign trough primary election by voters across the nation. Who, they the people, would like to see as their candidate. The whole thing would actually be a farce if they had eliminating elections to pick a candidate and then someone other than the ones who campaigned get elected on the floor

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Also, good stuff Strangelove. Do you think the Dems will retain their majority in the House/Senate? They do currently have the majority, right? They have the smallest of majorities in the Senate (49 D 49 R and two independents who caucus with the Democrats) and a slim majority in the House (233 D 202 R). But I see no reason why the Democrats shouldn't not only only keep but expand their majorities this November.

And thanks Originally posted by lord xyz
Some poeple will not like me for saying this, but has America ever had a candidate that was popular in the US and the rest of the world before? Because I think Obama might actually be the first. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about. "Popular" as Digi said, is a relative term. Popular? Probably. "The rest of the world wants Obama to be the next U.S. President" popular? Not necessarily.

As most of you surely already know, I'm a Democrat by trade. But I'm going to be as impartial as I can in this thread. Just so's ya know.

Bastard.

Originally posted by anaconda
to be nominated on the floor aint to democratic because it aint the people who would elect the person, the other nominees have campaign trough primary election by voters across the nation. Who, they the people, would like to see as their candidate. The whole thing would actually be a farce if they had eliminating elections to pick a candidate and then someone other than the ones who campaigned get elected on the floor

Well, one might argue it's still part of representative democracy, don't you think?

The United States is a republic. The people don't make the decisions, we choose the people who are going to make them for us. There's nothing undemocratic about someone being nominated from the the floor, because the delegates can choose for themselves.

But like I said...you're unlikely to be successful.

Their system, their way, but I now if it happened here people would have had a fit.
One must think what signal it sends to the masses, it aint like they had really really great turn up on the last Prez elections in the States, and TO ME things like this really would be a negative factor in a pros and cons of voting or not.

may I ask who you hold as fav for candidate?

Clinton

ok

Originally posted by Strangelove
The people don't make the decisions, we choose the people who are going to make them for us.

Funnily the definition of representative Democracy,,,which what the US happens to be.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Funnily the definition of representative Democracy,,,which what the US happens to be. Federal constitutional republic, to be absolutely precise.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Federal constitutional republic, to be absolutely precise. And a representative Democracy. To be even more precise.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And a representative Democracy. To be even more precise. Incorrect. The precisest you could be would be to call the United States of America a federal presidential constitutional republic with a representative democratic regime. Which is exactly what it is.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Incorrect. The precisest you could be would be to call the United States of America a federal presidential constitutional republic with a representative democratic regime. Which is exactly what it is. You could be even more precise actually, but you know it gets confusing. What most people would probably find interesting though is that the US is a republic and a democracy. I just don't like when people say that the US isn't a democracy, it just is.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You could be even more precise actually, but you know it gets confusing. What most people would probably find interesting though is that the US is a republic and a democracy. I just don't like when people say that the US isn't a democracy, it just is. The US isn't a democracy per se, it's a republic with a democratic regime. But I understand what you're saying.

Originally posted by Strangelove
The US isn't a democracy per se, it's a republic with a democratic regime. But I understand what you're saying. It is a democracy de jure (ha, see how I just whipped out my latin), but it's good that you know what I mean.

It's good you know some Latin.

So they put up false labels, why?

I'm sorry, what?

Originally posted by Strangelove
I'm sorry, what?

It looks like a jab at American politics. He was most likely being facetious.

si

Rock on.

I live in Nevada where neither senate seat nor the Governors race is happening. The casino owned state legislature will likely be reinstated as will the casino owned US representatives from Nevada. Nevada is a very libertarian state in it's view towards taxes and business and that's why we are either at or near the bottom of the states in terms of healthcare and education.


I do not like any of my probable choices for President. McCain is too old, want's to cut taxes (on the rich) even further despite the huge budget shortfalls, and likely wants war with Iran. Clinton will say or do nearly anything to get elected and her stance on many issues depends on how well she is doing in the polls with a particular demographic on a given day. Obama is probably the worst of the three. He is riding a huge emotional wave of support by many people who have no clue about what he really stands for. He's good at pointing out many of the problems we face but repeatedly fails to be specific about how he would fix them. He's also beating the dead horse civil rights issue and why did he stay at the church with that blatently Anti-American preacher for 20 years and give him so much money?

At one of the most critical junctions in history we probably couldn't have three worse options to occupy the job we so desperately need someone who will not only be competant but will be a in the league of Washington, Lincoln, or FDR.

Looks liked we're fukked.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Plenty. You just aren't thinking back far enough. Though a lot depends on which country you're speaking of, because "like/dislike" among other countries is largely dictated by political climate.

...

Also, good stuff Strangelove. Do you think the Dems will retain their majority in the House/Senate? They do currently have the majority, right? Western world...Europe & North America

I probably amn't thinking back far enough. I have heard a lot of people wanting Obama to win. On the net, in the media, people I talk to and his delegate count. Compare this to the 04 election. America wanted Bush, everyone else wanted Kerry.

Wrong.

Just because America reelected Bush doesn't mean everyone wanted him.

At least in 04 he won the popular vote.

Now, when it comes to the House of Representatives, as I mentioned before, there are 440 elections every 2 years (435 Representatives, 5 territorial delegates). However, every election cycle there are only a handful (between 40-50) that are truly competitive. This election year is marked by the fact that a disproportionate number of Republicans are choosing to retire rather than run for re-election: 25 (plus one who was defeated in the primary) vs. 7 Democrats, of which 3 are running for higher office.

There are a number of Freshman Democrats who won in Republican-leaning districts due to the Republican scandals of 2006. Examples include Rep. Nick Lampson (D-TX), who was elected after former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay was indicted in criminal court.

These races are expected to be heavily targeted by the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). There are also a number of Republicans who currently represent Democratic-leaning districts which are being targeted by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). One example is Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-PA). His District has a Partisan Voting Index of D+2.

Most prediction websites show the Democratic Congress holding and expanding its majority in the lower House. One, D.C's Political Report shows Democrats getting a net gain of 5 seats. I personally think these numbers to be a conservative estimate: I believe Democrats could get a net gain of 10-15 seats if they try hard enough.

United States House of Representatives elections, 2008 (Wikipedia)
CQ Politics
The Rothenberg Political Report

Originally posted by BackFire
At least in 04 he won the popular vote. Yes, he did. Unless the stolen election theory is true, America wanted Bush.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Yes, he did. Unless the stolen election theory is true, America wanted Bush. I'll say it again - choosing is different than wanting.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I'll say it again - choosing is different than wanting.

I agree; we don't get to choose none of the above.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
we don't get to choose none of the above.

We do in Nevada. Too bad it's only symbolic in National elections.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I agree; we don't get to choose none of the above.

Yes you do.

It's called not voting.

Voters have an avenue to choose candidates they want: it's called primaries. Sadly, only a fraction of voters actually participate in primaries, so complaining about the choices you get in the general election is just ludicrous.

CQPolitics has the following ratings for races in the House, Senate and for Governorships. You can follow the link I posted higher on the page to get an interactive map of House races.

House of Representatives
Safe Democrat
The Democratic nominee is/will be a strong favorite, and an upset is virtually impossible.

Democratic held seats (D): 197
Republican held seats (R): 0

Democrat Favored
The Democratic nominee has/will have a strong lead and appears likely to win, but an upset cannot be completely ruled out.

D: 9
R: 1

Leans Democratic
The Democratic nominee has/will have an edge, but the contest appears competitive and an upset is a live possibility.

D: 23
R: 0

No Clear Favorite
Neither party has established a definite lead in the contest.

D: 4
R: 10

Leans Republican
The Republican nominee has/will have an edge, but the contest appears competitive and an upset is a live possibility.

D: 0
R: 21

Republican Favored
The Republican nominee has/will have a strong lead and appears likely to win, but an upset cannot be completely ruled out.

D: 0
R: 17

Safe Republican
The Republican nominee is/will be a strong favorite, and an upset is virtually impossible.

D: 0
R: 149

Senate
Safe Democrat
D: 10
R: 0

Democrat Favored
D: 1
R: 1

Leans Democratic
D: 1
R: 1

No Clear Favorite
D: 0
R: 3

Leans Republican
D: 0
R: 3

Republican Favored
D: 0
R: 10

Safe Republican
D: 0
R: 5

Governorships
Safe
D: 2
R: 0

Favored
D: 2
R: 0

Leans
D: 2
R: 0

Tossup
D: 0
R: 1

Leans
D: 0
R: 1

Favored
D: 0
R: 0

Safe
D: 0
R: 3

Originally posted by Strangelove
Voters have an avenue to choose candidates they want: it's called primaries. Sadly, only a fraction of voters actually participate in primaries, so complaining about the choices you get in the general election is just ludicrous. Well, though even in the primaries of the two largest parties you might not find anyone that suits you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, though even in the primaries of the two largest parties you might not find anyone that suits you. Then for Christ's sake, organize a party, get active, aggressively court and field candidates that you feel best represent you. I've heard a lot of people complain about the two party system, but it's no one's fault but the voters and their lack of participation.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Then for Christ's sake, organize a party, get active, aggressively court and field candidates that you feel best represent you. I've heard a lot of people complain about the two party system, but it's no one's fault but the voters and their lack of participation. I fully agree. Which is why I hate all Americans, not your system

Originally posted by Bardock42
I fully agree. Which is why I hate all Americans, not your system Hey, I hate everyone too, buddy.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Hey, I hate everyone too, buddy. On a less humoury note, obviously the set up of your system is designed for a two party systems. Third parties have little or no chance even with a relatively large following of the population.

Originally posted by Bardock42
On a less humoury note, obviously the set up of your system is designed for a two party systems. Third parties have little or no chance even with a relatively large following of the population. That's the problem with first-past-the-post systems as opposed to proportional representation. But hey, that's our system. I prefer it to foreign models, but I admit I'm biased.

Originally posted by Strangelove
That's the problem with first-past-the-post systems as opposed to proportional representation. But hey, that's our system. I prefer it to foreign models, but I admit I'm biased. Why are you biased and why do you prefer it?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why are you biased and why do you prefer it? I'm biased because I've, you know, lived here all my life.

And I prefer the U.S. system because here you actually vote for a person instead of a party. I know I'm generalizing the European systems, but from what I understand from my classes is that you vote for a party. And yes, you can look at candidate lists and whatnot, but when it comes down to it, you're voting for a party. In the U.S. you are casting a concrete vote for say, Baron Hill (my Rep. in Congress) when you vote.. While Hill does affiliate himself with a party, you're not voting for the Democratic Party explicitly. You're voting for Baron Hill.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Then for Christ's sake, organize a party, get active, aggressively court and field candidates that you feel best represent you. I've heard a lot of people complain about the two party system, but it's no one's fault but the voters and their lack of participation.

That's a cute thought and all but most people who could organize don't have the resources (generally financial) to do anything serious. If the media won't give you airtime, exposure is minimal at best

Originally posted by Strangelove
I'm biased because I've, you know, lived here all my life.

And I prefer the U.S. system because here you actually vote for a person instead of a party. I know I'm generalizing the European systems, but from what I understand from my classes is that you vote for a party. And yes, you can look at candidate lists and whatnot, but when it comes down to it, you're voting for a party. In the U.S. you are casting a concrete vote for say, Baron Hill (my Rep. in Congress) when you vote.. While Hill does affiliate himself with a party, you're not voting for the Democratic Party explicitly. You're voting for Baron Hill. I suppose you don't have very vast knowledge of European politics. Also, doesn't it bother you that possibly a vast majority of the country could have close to no say in what president they want?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Also, doesn't it bother you that possibly a vast majority of the country could have close to no say in what president they want?

I think I know what you mean but please explain this point further

Originally posted by chithappens
That's a cute thought and all but most people who could organize don't have the resources (generally financial) to do anything serious. If the media won't give you airtime, exposure is minimal at best I'm not saying that anyone can do it, I'm just saying that instead of complaining, do something.

Plus, you don't even need to start your own party. You can just field a candidate in one of the two major parties that you feel better represents you. You can be involved, aggressively. You can shape the debate and play offense rather than defense.

Basically I'm calling Americans lazy.

Which they are.

Originally posted by chithappens
I think I know what you mean but please explain this point further Well a majority of your counts. Possibly even a large majority could possibly vote for the candidate as president that ends up losing. The popular vote doesn't matter really, it all just depends how the lines are drawn.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I suppose you don't have very vast knowledge of European politics. Also, doesn't it bother you that possibly a vast majority of the country could have close to no say in what president they want? I consider that to be the people's fault, not the system. If people don't think the system works, then they can get up off their asses and change it themselves.

And my knowledge of European politics is limited to somewhat anecdotal status. Most of my familiarity (if you could call it that) is with the British system. I am trying to learn though.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I consider that to be the people's fault, not the system. If people don't think the system works, then they can get up off their asses and change it themselves.

How is it the people's fault? You do have an endless believe in the system, don't you?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well a majority of your counts. Possibly even a large majority could possibly vote for the candidate as president that ends up losing. The popular vote doesn't matter really, it all just depends how the lines are drawn. Oh, I thought you were talking about the primary system, not the Electoral College.

The Electoral College is a sticky issue, because it was actually written into the Constitution. But back then, electors had far more control over who they voted for, because voters were unable to get all the information by themselves due to the technology available.

Today, the system is outdated, with internet and 24 news network informing the public to their heart's content.

But abolishing the Electoral College would take a Constitutional Amendment, which needs to be passed with a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress and then ratified by 3/4 of the States (i.e. it's really f*cking hard).

I'd be all for abolishing it though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
How is it the people's fault? You do have an endless believe in the system, don't you? It's not that I believe in the system, it's just that if people don't like the system, it's the people's responsibility to do something about it. You can hardly trust the system to change itself.

Originally posted by Strangelove
It's not that I believe in the system, it's just that if people don't like the system, it's the people's responsibility to do something about it. You can hardly trust the system to change itself.

If you look at history, big changes (which are really needed) do not happen in government without a revolution. It may be the people's responsibility but how the hell can one speak up for themselves if they are ignorant to most things. One can not always blame the majority if they are not offered information. Everyone is not able to go to a university or even receive a decent high school education. That is the reality of the situation. I'm in college and they still try to teach me "what to think" rather than "how to think." With this in proper context, what sort of responsibility can one have if they are not even aware of it?

This capitalistic society would hardly ever see that happen without a common cause but all the "isms" (race, gender, religion, etc.) are used to separate everyone. You mentioned voting for a candidate that best represents me, but I hardly ever see anyone who is close to that.

I like the ideas of Obama but I don't see how he will implement any of his ideas and apparently neither does he. McCain is clueless and seems like a "yes man" Clinton is just comes off like a snake to me on various issues. So I'm not comfortable with any of the candidates. What do I do? Run myself! Oh wait, no money. I wouldn't even be able to begin anything serious even on a local level.

The situation is far more complex than a simple "Get off your ass."

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well a majority of your counts. Possibly even a large majority could possibly vote for the candidate as president that ends up losing. The popular vote doesn't matter really, it all just depends how the lines are drawn.

Far as I know, concerning presidental elections this has happened twice: 2004 with Kerry and Bush and I forget the other time it happened.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Oh, I thought you were talking about the primary system, not the Electoral College.

The Electoral College is a sticky issue, because it was actually written into the Constitution. But back then, electors had far more control over who they voted for, because voters were unable to get all the information by themselves due to the technology available.

Today, the system is outdated, with internet and 24 news network informing the public to their heart's content.

But abolishing the Electoral College would take a Constitutional Amendment, which needs to be passed with a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress and then ratified by 3/4 of the States (i.e. it's really f*cking hard).

I'd be all for abolishing it though. Well, I take about "the winner takes it all" systems in general. As you might now I am opposed to all sorts of authoritarian democracy, but to me it seems that in a winner take it all not all people are truly represented.
Originally posted by Strangelove
It's not that I believe in the system, it's just that if people don't like the system, it's the people's responsibility to do something about it. You can hardly trust the system to change itself. True. I agree with it. But how do you suppose they should change it? And also I think a good start is to voice your disagreement with certain parts of the system. "Go and do something about it" is to me just a blanket statement to not deal with complaints in discussion.

Originally posted by chithappens
Far as I know, concerning presidental elections this has happened twice: 2004 with Kerry and Bush and I forget the other time it happened. I am more talking about it being a possibility, which could possibly be annoying (I do believe it happened with Gore/Bush btw).

Originally posted by chithappens
The situation is far more complex than a simple "Get off your ass." No shit. I'm well aware of that, thank you, I was just boiling it down to a simple point. People need to educate themselves, not expect that someone else is going to do it for them. People need to find their motivator. As an active member of 3 student involvement advocacy groups on campus, I feel that I'm doing my part.

Originally posted by chithappens
Far as I know, concerning presidental elections this has happened twice: 2004 with Kerry and Bush and I forget the other time it happened. It was Bush v. Gore in 2000, and the other time it happened was in the 1800s

Originally posted by Bardock42
True. I agree with it. But how do you suppose they should change it? And also I think a good start is to voice your disagreement with certain parts of the system. "Go and do something about it" is to me just a blanket statement to not deal with complaints in discussion. I'm not suggesting that "Do something about it yourself" should be an excuse for the system not doing anything, but people should be getting involved, and work to change the system rather than just laying back and b!tching about it.

Laziness when it comes to politics is something that really bugs me.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I'm not suggesting that "Do something about it yourself" should be an excuse for the system not doing anything, but people should be getting involved, and work to change the system rather than just laying back and b!tching about it.

Laziness when it comes to politics is something that really bugs me. I agree to an extent. Though I think bitching about it is a good start. Also, it is a quite hard position for revolutionaries nowadays, innit?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am more talking about it being a possibility, which could possibly be annoying (I do believe it happened with Gore/Bush btw).

I just looked up the popular vote and apparently Bush why by a little under 3 million votes. I don't have the greatest memory but I know that's off. On a very quick web search I found two things:

1) There are an inordinate amount of complaints concerning the 2004 federal elections concerning how votes were counted and some people being unable to vote for a variety of reasons.

2) No federal agency is around to directly regulate the counting of votes... That is an issuechair

I'm certain that this is off because I was in high school when this happened and me and a teacher were discussing how this was the second time it had ever happened. Now of course this was right as it happened so they may have "recounted" again.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I take about "the winner takes it all" systems in general. As you might now I am opposed to all sorts of authoritarian democracy, but to me it seems that in a winner take it all not all people are truly represented. I don't really have an issue with the Electoral College, not because it isn't flawed, but because the real shit gets done at the state and local level. That's where the magic happens, so to speak. For instance, when Bush wanted to pass a Constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, it failed. So what did he do? He left it to the states. And now 38 states have banned gay marriage and/or partnership benefits either by statute or by amending their constitution. You're much more likely to change things on the state and local level than you are on the national level.

Originally posted by Strangelove
No shit. I'm well aware of that, thank you, I was just boiling it down to a simple point. People need to educate themselves, not expect that someone else is going to do it for them. People need to find their motivator. As an active member of 3 student involvement advocacy groups on campus, I feel that I'm doing my part.

Here's my issue: You are not talking about the fortunate people, like us, who can have college resources at our disposal. You are talking about the average U.S. citizen. "Educating yourself" goes so far if the social climate around you is not viable to that cause.

Well just check Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Election_2000

It says he lost by a little more than 500 000.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well just check Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Election_2000

It says he lost by a little more than 500 000.

O ok, I'm not crazy. Right president, wrong election

For instance, you take issue with the Electoral College. Well there's currently a movement called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It's a law that if passed, guarantees that the winner of the popular vote gets that states' electoral votes. It's somewhat slow going, but so far, 2 states have signed it into law (Maryland and New Jersey).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

Originally posted by chithappens
Here's my issue: You are not talking about the fortunate people, like us, who can have college resources at our disposal. You are talking about the average U.S. citizen. "Educating yourself" goes so far if the social climate around you is not viable to that cause. I can honestly say that what you just wrote makes no sense to me.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I don't really have an issue with the Electoral College, not because it isn't flawed, but because the real shit gets done at the state and local level. That's where the magic happens, so to speak. For instance, when Bush wanted to pass a Constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, it failed. So what did he do? He left it to the states. And now 38 states have banned gay marriage and/or partnership benefits either by statute or by amending their constitution. You're much more likely to change things on the state and local level than you are on the national level.

I might be ignorant to this but I thought the electoral college was only for zoning off presidential elections. I am unaware of any other uses.

Regardless, the points are not given by the proportion to population so it still doesn't make any sense at all. Some say it makes smaller states seem important and the candidates have to visit but even that's stupid because it not like they sign something that holds them to the promises that make on these bus tours.

Originally posted by Strangelove
For instance, you take issue with the Electoral College. Well there's currently a movement called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It's a law that if passed, guarantees that the winner of the popular vote gets that states' electoral votes. It's somewhat slow going, but so far, 2 states have signed it into law (Maryland and New Jersey).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact Don't really see a big improvement if that happened.

But I mean look at what could possibly happen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1984-Large.png

He got 59% of the people's approval...but won 98% of the electoral votes. Could someone with say 30% of the popular vote win the whole election?

Originally posted by Strangelove
I can honestly say that what you just wrote makes no sense to me.

You say (average/everyday/(insert generic word) Americans are lazy. The average American does not have a college degree. The average American does not care much about politics (this particular is an assumption). So any average citizen is not in a place where the (climate/synergy/paradigm) is supportive of giving a ****.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Don't really see a big improvement if that happened.

But I mean look at what could possibly happen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1984-Large.png

He got 59% of the people's approval...but won 98% of the electoral votes. Could someone with say 30% of the popular vote win the whole election?

Maybe 40%; 30% takes some really weird voting patterns. I'm too lazy to do the math but it's pretty silly to me.

Originally posted by chithappens
You say (average/everyday/(insert generic word) Americans are lazy. The average American does not have a college degree. The average American does not care much about politics (this particular is an assumption). So any average citizen is not in a place where the (climate/synergy/paradigm) is supportive of giving a ****. That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm at college and I know tons of people who are just as lazy as what you term "average" Americans, politically.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Don't really see a big improvement if that happened.

But I mean look at what could possibly happen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1984-Large.png

He got 59% of the people's approval...but won 98% of the electoral votes. Could someone with say 30% of the popular vote win the whole election? Regardless, if the Electoral college didn't exist, he would have won the election.

And it's highly unlikely that someone who had 30% of the popular vote would get a majority of the Electoral College. That necessitates the existence of multiple strong candidates, in which case no candidate would get a majority, and then the decision goes to the House of Representatives.

Originally posted by Strangelove
That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm at college and I know tons of people who are just as lazy as what you term "average" Americans, politically.

1) The whole average theme came from you.

Originally posted by Strangelove


Basically I'm calling Americans lazy.

Which they are.

I just needed to coin it something. It's a generalization no matter how you put it.

2) Duh, there are lazy, apathetic people in college. My point is that if one is around a majority of people who already don't care and don't have the resources to make change, how can you expect that person to care at all? Again, cute idea, but it's rare. This is a democracy (which makes it seem like a duh point) but even without that system, ALL revolutions occur amongst the masses. A few informed, optimistic people can not make change. History changes with the masses, not the witty elite.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I don't really have an issue with the Electoral College, not because it isn't flawed, but because the real shit gets done at the state and local level. That's where the magic happens, so to speak. For instance, when Bush wanted to pass a Constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, it failed. So what did he do? He left it to the states. And now 38 states have banned gay marriage and/or partnership benefits either by statute or by amending their constitution. You're much more likely to change things on the state and local level than you are on the national level. Well whats wrong with that? The states that wanted gay marriage, got it. Those that didn't, didn't. If Bush made the whole country ban gay marriage, then those 12 states wouldn't be very happy.

I think that was actually a very good decision.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Regardless, if the Electoral college didn't exist, he would have won the election.

And it's highly unlikely that someone who had 30% of the popular vote would get a majority of the Electoral College. That necessitates the existence of multiple strong candidates, in which case no candidate would get a majority, and then the decision goes to the House of Representatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_2000

The man got less popular vote, but won the election. Is that okay?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Well whats wrong with that? The states that wanted gay marriage, got it. Those that didn't, didn't. If Bush made the whole country ban gay marriage, then those 12 states wouldn't be very happy.

I think that was actually a very good decision. Sure, it worked, but discriminating against a group of people like that is wrong...

lol, let them have a referendum on slavery in the south...

or immigration

Originally posted by Strangelove
Sure, it worked, but discriminating against a group of people like that is wrong... Yeah, but that's not the system's fault. Just the people.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Don't really see a big improvement if that happened.

But I mean look at what could possibly happen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1984-Large.png

He got 59% of the people's approval...but won 98% of the electoral votes. Could someone with say 30% of the popular vote win the whole election?

I don't think so. Doesn't the candidate have to win over 50% of the popular vote for a specific state to win the electoral votes of that state? Of course, that could vary from state to state...but amirite?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't think so. Doesn't the candidate have to win over 50% of the popular vote for a specific state to win the electoral votes of that state? Of course, that could vary from state to state...but amirite? You are.

So someone could win 51% - 49% in the bigger states and lose all others 100% to 0 and he'd have lost popular vote by a huge, huge margin.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are.

So someone could win 51% - 49% in the bigger states and lose all others 100% to 0 and he'd have lost popular vote by a huge, huge margin.

Wow...I never thought of it that way. A person could campaign in the major states extensively and win the election...

hmm

Of course, the other person running would counter-campaign in those states and that would null that strategy most likely.

What about the executive branch having 5 members instead of just the president...as far as executive power goes? That would seem to be a better way to represent Americans. You are more than welcome to criticize that idea...I am open to "you are stupid for thinking of that."

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wow...I never thought of it that way. A person could campaign in the major states extensively and win the election...

hmm

Of course, the other person running would counter-campaign in those states and that would null that strategy most likely.

What about the executive branch having 5 members instead of just the president...as far as executive power goes? That would seem to be a better way to represent Americans. You are more than welcome to criticize that idea...I am open to "you are stupid for thinking of that."

In a democracy, and as far as campaigning goes, people would get confused. Think about how many canididates you would have

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wow...I never thought of it that way. A person could campaign in the major states extensively and win the election...

hmm

Of course, the other person running would counter-campaign in those states and that would null that strategy most likely.

What about the executive branch having 5 members instead of just the president...as far as executive power goes? That would seem to be a better way to represent Americans. You are more than welcome to criticize that idea...I am open to "you are stupid for thinking of that." Might be an idea. Another would be to limit the power of the president and to strengthen those of the parliament. Also make the elections more reflect popular votes. You could assign the seats in a list way for example. In Germany we have that a list, while at the same time voting for our specific represantative. I think it is a pretty smart system for a pretty stupid system like democracy anyways.

Originally posted by chithappens
In a democracy, and as far as campaigning goes, people would get confused. Think about how many canididates you would have


That was the first thing that came to mind when I thought of a new system for the executive branch...but I thought that that point was null considering at the beginning of the year, we had 10+ "major" candidates for the presidential election. We would definately get more candidates...but we have plenty already to term it confusing.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Might be an idea. Another would be to limit the power of the president and to strengthen those of the parliament. Also make the elections more reflect popular votes. You could assign the seats in a list way for example. In Germany we have that a list, while at the same time voting for our specific represantative. I think it is a pretty smart system for a pretty stupid system like democracy anyways.

That was my idea behind it. Too much power for one man. Limiting that power of the president by making "his" votes "their" votes. Similar to the supreme court. I am a believer in Checks and Balances; I like the idea. However, I don't think it is used enough. When we have a majority of congress wanting to set an end to the campaign in Iraq and a president who Vetoes left and right but a congress who is too afraid to override that veto, we need a better way to run the the system of checks and balances. This is my opinion, of course.

Mike Gravel joined the libertarian party. I thought people should know that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't think so. Doesn't the candidate have to win over 50% of the popular vote for a specific state to win the electoral votes of that state? Of course, that could vary from state to state...but amirite? Not necessarily over 50%, just a plurality. For example, in 1992, when Ross Perot ran a very strong campaign, I think there were very few states where the candidate who won the state got a majority.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Mike Gravel joined the libertarian party. I thought people should know that. That's news that's more relevant to the Democratic nomination thread.

If people are still using that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Might be an idea. Another would be to limit the power of the president and to strengthen those of the parliament. Also make the elections more reflect popular votes. You could assign the seats in a list way for example. In Germany we have that a list, while at the same time voting for our specific represantative. I think it is a pretty smart system for a pretty stupid system like democracy anyways. Democracy is a stupid system, now?

It reminds me of a Winston Churchill quote: "Democracy is a the worst form of government; except for all the others."

Originally posted by Strangelove
Democracy is a stupid system, now?

It reminds me of a Winston Churchill quote: "Democracy is a the worst form of government; except for all the others." Now? I have been saying that for months now. And though Churchill did many great things, I don't agree with this quote. We have a ridiculous, mind blowingly blinding believe that Democracy is the greatest thing and that everyone should have it, and if we look at it, it's just as oppressive as any other system. Also, we sadly seem to equate it with freedom lately.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Now? I have been saying that for months now. And though Churchill did many great things, I don't agree with this quote. We have a ridiculous, mind blowingly blinding believe that Democracy is the greatest thing and that everyone should have it, and if we look at it, it's just as oppressive as any other system. Also, we sadly seem to equate it with freedom lately.

So, then you disagree with the "except all others" part, right?

Originally posted by Devil King
So, then you disagree with the "except all others" part, right?

Yes, he is all for pure Anarchy.

Originally posted by Devil King
So, then you disagree with the "except all others" part, right? . Yes, I believe so. Personally I fancy the idea of no government at all, but I suppose there could be better ones.

Also, this quote by him "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. " is much better.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Also, this quote by him "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. " is much better.

Quoted your quote for truth.

Originally posted by Bardock42
.Also, this quote by him "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. " is much better.

It's true, but what does a voter have to do to become the not-so-average voter? It's very true, but it's also very arrogant. I'm all for an educated, informed and intellignet voter, but how do we deny the right to those who aren't; other than making the right to vote something someone earns through merrit?

Originally posted by Devil King
It's true, but what does a voter have to do to become the not-so-average voter? It's very true, but it's also very arrogant. I'm all for an educated, informed and intellignet voter, but how do we deny the right to those who aren't; other than making the right to vote something someone earns through merrit? I think we should just deny it to everyone.


Problem solved.

Originally posted by chithappens
1) The whole average theme came from you.



I just needed to coin it something. It's a generalization no matter how you put it.

2) Duh, there are lazy, apathetic people in college. My point is that if one is around a majority of people who already don't care and don't have the resources to make change, how can you expect that person to care at all? Again, cute idea, but it's rare. This is a democracy (which makes it seem like a duh point) but even without that system, ALL revolutions occur amongst the masses. A few informed, optimistic people can not make change. History changes with the masses, not the witty elite.

Yo Strange, mind addressing this?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think we should just deny it to everyone.


Problem solved.

So, explain the merrits of no government to me, again? No national infrastructure? No state infrastructure? Self-regulated business practice? No justice system? No military? No way of making sure other people don't form governments?

Originally posted by Devil King
So, explain the merrits of no government to me, again? No national infrastructure? No state infrastructure? Self-regulated business practice? No justice system? No military? No way of making sure other people don't form governments?
The merits are private infrastructure. Market regulated business. Private Justice System. Private protection. Higher responsibility.

And people can form governments, if there were anarchist people they would protect their freedom themselves. Probably with help of private businesses.

I'd settle for a libertarian government, but my dream would be an anarchist society.

People suck so the systems all fail.

Oh well

Originally posted by Bardock42
The merits are private infrastructure. Market regulated business. Private Justice System. Private protection. Higher responsibility.

And people can form governments, if there were anarchist people they would protect their freedom themselves. Probably with help of private businesses.

I'd settle for a libertarian government, but my dream would be an anarchist society.


wow.

Originally posted by Devil King
wow. I agree.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree.

You express a lot of unwarranted faith in your fellow man.

Originally posted by Devil King
You express a lot of unwarranted faith in your fellow man. To a degree I assume. Though I believe that in a true anarchist society many things would be required for people to adopt. Also, don't you, in the same way, express a huge amount of unwarranted faith in your fellow men? Your fellow men you choose to be your absolute rulers on top of that?

Originally posted by Bardock42
To a degree I assume. Though I believe that in a true anarchist society many things would be required for people to adopt. Also, don't you, in the same way, express a huge amount of unwarranted faith in your fellow men? Your fellow men you choose to be your absolute rulers on top of that?

Not at all. We both know I'm a fascist.

Originally posted by Devil King
Not at all. We both know I'm a fascist. Does that somehow make the amount of trust you have into a person less?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Does that somehow make the amount of trust you have into a person less?

Yes. People aren't bright enough to think for themseves.

Originally posted by Devil King
Yes. People aren't bright enough to think for themseves. But you have faith in one (or a few) person. As we know 95% of people are morons. The likelyhood that you will have a moronic leader is ... likely.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But you have faith in one (or a few) person. As we know 95% of people are morons. The likelyhood that you will have a moronic leader is ... likely.

I have faith in me. That's why I'm not a registered fascist. As for 95%, I think that's a little high, but still a reasonable assumption.

As it is, I do not run things in this world; this is why I rarely argue from a fascist perspective. Obama is no more a fascist than is Ron Paul an anarchist.

Originally posted by Devil King
I have faith in me. That's why I'm not a registered fascist. As for 95%, I think that's a little high, but still a reasonable assumption.

As it is, I do not run things in this world; this is why I rarely argue from a fascist perspective. Obama is no more a fascist than is Ron Paul an anarchist. I think actually that Obama is a little less fascist than Ron Paul is anarchist.

But as I remember your form of fascism, it could very much be compatible with my form of libertarianism. We both don't like people interfering with private business. If no one is harmed (but possibly yourself) it's of no matter to anyone. The anarchist society I envision is the sort of utopia to that ideal, it is unlikely if not impossible to achieve, but I see no point in denying it. I am just as much a libertarian as I am an anarchist though. And I could see your idea of fascism in connection with my idea of libertarianism. As I said, Democracy sucks.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think actually that Obama is a little less fascist than Ron Paul is anarchist.

But as I remember your form of fascism, it could very much be compatible with my form of libertarianism. We both don't like people interfering with private business. If no one is harmed (but possibly yourself) it's of no matter to anyone. The anarchist society I envision is the sort of utopia to that ideal, it is unlikely if not impossible to achieve, but I see no point in denying it. I am just as much a libertarian as I am an anarchist though. And I could see your idea of fascism in connection with my idea of libertarianism. As I said, Democracy sucks.

My idea of fascism is the first step towards that utopian society. A very harsh and bitter, seemingly dangerous step. But a vital one none the less.

I would just like to point out that this thread is about the upcoming general elections in 2008, not about arguing the merits of various governmental systems.

So if anyone has any questions about that, I'd be happy to have a discussion.

Then perhaps we should have a moderator remove any posts in the thread that have nothing to do with the 2008 elections. Other forms of government, past elections, etc.

I doubt slightly askewed conversation detracts from the topic.

BUT, I have noticed that conversation abut the current elections have wavered. The primary process seems to have been so over publicized that the run up to the November ballots has begun to wear on people. I think this works in the favor of the republicans.

Something huge needs to happen to catch the interest of the public again.

I wasn't suggesting deleting the posts, just that we get back on topic.

And I disagree. Just because some people might be getting weary of election talk, I don't think that benefits the Republicans. By the way, are you referring solely to the Presidential race, or in other races too? Because Democratic candidates have been setting fund-raising records that show that no matter how long the process may go on, people know what they want.

As a parallel I would cite the filibuster of the Voting Rights Act of 1964. It was filibustered for 15+ hours, but in the end it still passed with a comfortable majority. The length of a process doesn't change one's goals.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I wasn't suggesting deleting the posts, just that we get back on topic.

And I disagree. Just because some people might be getting weary of election talk, I don't think that benefits the Republicans. By the way, are you referring solely to the Presidential race, or in other races too? Because Democratic candidates have been setting fund-raising records that show that no matter how long the process may go on, people know what they want.

As a parallel I would cite the filibuster of the Voting Rights Act of 1964. It was filibustered for 15+ hours, but in the end it still passed with a comfortable majority. The length of a process doesn't change one's goals.

Yes, only to the presidential election. I recently spoke to some friends that I haven't had the chance to talk to for the last 8 months, and they all talked about being tired of it. And don't misunderstand, I'm not talking about the votes changing, but only about closing the gap between the vote. There's little the republicans can do to change the inevitable outcome of the election. As I have said before, the primary process has illustrated that much. Democratic votes outpacing republican votes by 3 to 4 is a pretty hard lead for the republicans to overcome. People are simply tired of hearing about the primary process. The primary here was moved up this year, so they're tired of hearing about the on-going process. And the reason it benefits the republicans is because they're often the ones who maintain a constant level of foot peddal slapping interest. So I think it's clear disinterest will benefit the republicans, but certainly not to the point they'd win the peresidency or gain seats in congress.

You'd think that because of the nature of the election and the reputation of the outgoing President, the Democrats would be the one keeping up the energy and "foot pedal-slapping interest". In fact, that's exactly what's happening.

Of course, this is in Indiana, where our primary is actually going to matter for the first time since the 60s. I could understand a certain weariness in states that have already voted.

Originally posted by Strangelove
You'd think that because of the nature of the election and the reputation of the outgoing President, the Democrats would be the one keeping up the energy and "foot pedal-slapping interest". In fact, that's exactly what's happening.

Of course, this is in Indiana, where our primary is actually going to matter for the first time since the 60s. I could understand a certain weariness in states that have already voted.

There is little about foot-peddal slapping interest that involves energy; only tired experience and knowledge of the reward. And what is more comfortable to most people?

I have been able to experience, for the first time, a dualist perspective on a presidential election. Those who have voted are tired of the process and those who have yet to have a preliminary say in the matter are still waiting to be heard. That's why I think the democratic ticket going all the way to the convention won't hurt either candidate, because the super delegate has already been made out to be a figure of decisive proxy.

Did you guys know that Fox News is fair and balanced?

Like, totally.

Oh yeah.

Hitler never told a lie.

Special election update: On Saturday, April 5th, runoffs were held to determine the candidates in special elections in the 1st and 6th congressional districts in Louisiana.

In the 1st District, State Rep. Steve Scalise won the Republican Party runoff over State Rep. Tim Burns, 58-42%. He will face Democrat Gilda Reed, who avoided a runoff when she won the party primary 70-30%. However, CQPolitics rates the race as Safe Republican. The vacancy was created when Rep. Bobby Jindal was sworn in as Governor of Louisiana.

In the 6th congressional district the winners of the party runoffs were Republican former State Rep. Woody Jenkins and Democratic State Rep. Don Cazayoux. the 6th District is conservative but not necessarily Republican. Cazayoux is a conservative Democrat, and has received the endorsement of the National Rifle Association. CQPolitics rates the race as No Clear Favorite. The vacancy was created when Rep. Richard Baker resigned to head the Managed Funds Association.


On Tuesday, April 8th, a "jungle" special election primary will be held in California to determine the successor of Rep. Tom Lantos (D-12), who died in February. In a jungle primary, all the candidates from any party run on a single ballot. If any one candidate receives a majority (50+%), he/she is declared the winner and a runoff is avoided. However, if no candidate receives a majority, the top two vote getters will face a runoff on June 3rd. State Sen. Jackie Speier is the overwhelming favorite to win the special election and the general election in November, having been endorsed by Lantos himself in January and considering the district's heavy Democratic lean (CPVI: D+22). CQPolitics rates this race as Safe Democratic

Have you ever considered having a job in politics, Strangelove?

Mostly so I could say, "that guy in the suit there, I was one of his friends on the internet...unusual guy."

It's pretty much the only job I've considered ermm


After I stopped wanting to be a chef and actor when I was a kid, anyway. awesome

if you're a congressman, you could vote for matters to better your country.

You could also be friends with Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.

Originally posted by lord xyz
if you're a congressman, you could vote for matters to better your country.

You could also be friends with Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. If Ron Paul is still alive when I get there ermm

I can't run for Congress until I'm 25, but I'll probably wait until I'm around 30 to try.

Originally posted by Strangelove
If Ron Paul is still alive when I get there ermm

I can't run for Congress until I'm 25, but I'll probably wait until I'm around 30 to try.

I'll vote for ya...If I am living in Indiana. (That assumes you still live there as well.)

You do have to show a little boob, though, to get my vote.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'll vote for ya...If I am living in Indiana. (That assumes you still live there as well.)

You do have to show a little boob, though, to get my vote. Well, I'll never live in Oklahoma, so I'd get movin'

Originally posted by Strangelove
If Ron Paul is still alive when I get there ermm

I can't run for Congress until I'm 25, but I'll probably wait until I'm around 30 to try. Not until you're 25? It's 18 here. Oh well, Ron Paul is like 70something, he probably would retire when you enter. Oh well.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Democracy is a stupid system, now?

It reminds me of a Winston Churchill quote: "Democracy is a the worst form of government; except for all the others."
Yes, Democracy is atrocious. People have come to believe America was founded on Democracy ideals, but that just isn't the case. Democracy is mob rule (or majority rule).

Originally posted by Bardock42
. Yes, I believe so. Personally I fancy the idea of no government at all, but I suppose there could be better ones.

Also, this quote by him "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. " is much better.
Not doubt about it man.

To think, these morons (no offense) will be the reason I have to live under the rule of one of the three morons (no offense) that might get elected President.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The merits are private infrastructure. Market regulated business. Private Justice System. Private protection. Higher responsibility.

And people can form governments, if there were anarchist people they would protect their freedom themselves. Probably with help of private businesses.

I'd settle for a libertarian government, but my dream would be an anarchist society. I haven't completely dismissed government totally, but man, every day, I inch closer and closer to wishing for anarchism. Anarchism is like atheism. It has a negative connotation for some reason and is like the fringes of society only believe in it. Anarchism is too closely related with chaos and that simply isn't the case.

Why is government necessary at such a large capacity? Why do people want government giving them hand-outs? Why not? They grow depedent and realize in a Democracy, they can vote for the one that will give them the most money.

Originally posted by Devil King
You express a lot of unwarranted faith in your fellow man.
I don't think it is completely unwarranted DK.

Look at the last fifty years, hell, longer than that. Americans have allowed America to be a perpetual warfare/welfare state. It is a sad state of affairs.

As for the topic of the General Election, I like Jesse Ventura's idea: A "none of the above" option on the ballot. That be freaking amazing. It shows that there are people out there that want to participate, but don't have faith in government and/or don't like any other candidates (leading) on the ballot. I would absolutely love that option. I'm hoping Ventura throws his hat in for the Presidential bid (but he said he isn't getting ballot access, so I doubt it), but at the very least, a Senate bid.

Originally posted by BigRed
I don't think it is completely unwarranted DK.

Look at the last fifty years, hell, longer than that. Americans have allowed America to be a perpetual warfare/welfare state. It is a sad state of affairs.

As for the topic of the General Election, I like Jesse Ventura's idea: A "none of the above" option on the ballot. That be freaking amazing. It shows that there are people out there that want to participate, but don't have faith in government and/or don't like any other candidates (leading) on the ballot. I would absolutely love that option. I'm hoping Ventura throws his hat in for the Presidential bid (but he said he isn't getting ballot access, so I doubt it), but at the very least, a Senate bid.

The idea that America has been a perpetual welfare state ignores the very real problems many work-labor-motivated-willing Americans who live here everyday encounter. Lazy people exist everywhere and there will always be a large segment of the human population that are willing to suck off the state nipple, but it's inconsiderate to lump the unsuccesful with the lazy and unwilling. Success doesn't equte to effort. If that were the case, every person here would be a christian via observation.

The "none of the above' option is a waste of effort. If anyone stands in line to cast a vote for nothing, they intentionally choose to waste their time or fail to understand a vote for someone or something that isn't running in the election is a waste of effort. The US is a republic, not a democracy. When the ballots are counted, Mickey Mouse doesn't win because he has the majority of votes because he isn't running for office. If we counted all the ballots cast for a non-candidate, we'd likely have no government. In fact, Mr. "Ventura" propogating the idea is reflective of why professional wrestlers (read common citizens) shouldn't run for office. If he's been a state government official and hasn't figured out why calling for a "none of the above" vote makes about as much sense as keeping fresh seafood in a sock drawer, then he's politically and socially irresponsible....willingly.

If we lived in a republic that counted votes for a candidate based on amount v. official candidacy, the nationall media would be standing outside Disneyland every November. A ballot cast for none of the above is a ballot cast for no one. And we all like to espouse that people who vote for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil, but those who cast no vote at all have no gound on which to stand when it comes to claiming they suddenly have an opinion; that's exactly what "none of the above" is. The rules have changed since the guy who came in second was allowed to be vice president simply by merrit of getting the second most votes.

Originally posted by Devil King
The idea that America has been a perpetual welfare state ignores the very real problems many work-labor-motivated-willing Americans who live here everyday encounter. Lazy people exist everywhere and there will always be a large segment of the human population that are willing to suck off the state nipple, but it's inconsiderate to lump the unsuccesful with the lazy and unwilling. Success doesn't equte to effort. If that were the case, every person here would be a christian via observation.
But if they are unsuccessful, why should we help them? That's life. You lose some, you win some. You make mistakes. You get knocked back down. Why do I have to be forcefully told to pick you back up and pat you on the ass and tell you everything will be just fine?

Originally posted by Devil King The "none of the above' option is a waste of effort. If anyone stands in line to cast a vote for nothing, they intentionally choose to waste their time or fail to understand a vote for someone or something that isn't running in the election is a waste of effort. The US is a republic, not a democracy. When the ballots are counted, Mickey Mouse doesn't win because he has the majority of votes because he isn't running for office. If we counted all the ballots cast for a non-candidate, we'd likely have no government. In fact, Mr. "Ventura" propogating the idea is reflective of why professional wrestlers (read common citizens) shouldn't run for office. If he's been a state government official and hasn't figured out why calling for a "none of the above" vote makes about as much sense as keeping fresh seafood in a sock drawer, then he's politically and socially irresponsible....willingly.How is it a waste of time? Like I said, it shows that people don't have faith in government nor like the major candidates that the two party system has offered them. Makes sense to me.

Ha, I beg the differ DK. We are no longer a Constitutional Republic like we started out. We lost it (this is in reference to a Franklin quote). We are a democracy now. Whoa. What's wrong with professional wrestlers running for public office? They are just like you and me. They have political beliefs like either of us. What's wrong with that? Are you stereotyping professional wrestlers as stupid?

Originally posted by Devil King If we lived in a republic that counted votes for a candidate based on amount v. official candidacy, the nationall media would be standing outside Disneyland every November. A ballot cast for none of the above is a ballot cast for no one. And we all like to espouse that people who vote for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil, but those who cast no vote at all have no gound on which to stand when it comes to claiming they suddenly have an opinion; that's exactly what "none of the above" is. The rules have changed since the guy who came in second was allowed to be vice president simply by merrit of getting the second most votes. It is a ballot cast for principal, for something instead of against something or the lesser of an evil.

Originally posted by BigRed
But if they are unsuccessful, why should we help them? That's life. You lose some, you win some. You make mistakes. You get knocked back down. Why do I have to be forcefully told to pick you back up and pat you on the ass and tell you everything will be just fine?

How is it a waste of time? Like I said, it shows that people don't have faith in government nor like the major candidates that the two party system has offered them. Makes sense to me.

Ha, I beg the differ DK. We are no longer a Constitutional Republic like we started out. We lost it (this is in reference to a Franklin quote). We are a democracy now. Whoa. What's wrong with professional wrestlers running for public office? They are just like you and me. They have political beliefs like either of us. What's wrong with that? Are you stereotyping professional wrestlers as stupid?

It is a ballot cast for principal, for something instead of against something or the lesser of an evil.


No one is asking you to pick them up, and the pick-them-up programs offered by your own government don't pick them up anyway! What you must be addressing is what happens with your tax dollars?

It's a waste of time because those votes are documented, but go towards no useful expression. If Obama and McCain are running for President of the United States and 10 million people vote for Hillary CLinton, those votes won't count for a damn thing. Those votes won't be seen by people or political parties and suddenly inspire political or rhetorical change in either. It's a waste of time. Only people who think every vote matters are going to subscribe to the idea that a vote for Superman is going to count towards the man of steel actually getting the job.