United States Elections - 2008 downticket races: Senate, so on.

Started by Bardock4221 pages

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.