Indecision 2008: The Political Discussion Thread

[Amele]

I vote by Principle. In 2000 I voted for Nader, because I lived in Kansas and voting Democrat is pissing your vote away. Fed. Matching Funds = :nikkei:

In 2004, I actually don't remember who I voted for. Perhaps Kerry, just b/c I hated GWB that much. I liked Edwards more.

this year, I'll vote Nader again. I dislike both Hilary and Obama, and if Nader would put Kucinich as VP, that would rule. Obama wanting to put faith back into government (meaning religion) is a problem for me. Hilary's constant sniping and crap is just that.

I'm gonna go out on a limb tho and say this: Anyone. ANYONE.

who claims Nader cost the election in 2004? no.

You know what did? The Electoral College.

Get away with it or make it by pop%. So it's not all for nothing.

That's really all I have to say about that.

couple minor points, although I generally agree with alot of what you said;

the electoral college protects smaller states (that's right, not only do we have a representative democracy, we have a representative representative democracy. is this like a trace buster buster? ) and generally speaking, does exactly what it is meant to do. as long as the united states continues to recognize states' rights, the electoral college in -some- form, needs to remain in place.

Whether most states should continue to use winner-take-all bloc voting to cast their electoral college ballots is a matter for each state to decide individually, and if you don't like how your state does it, it is within your power to lobby your state government to change their policy.

second point: technically, the supreme court decided the 2000 election. It was within Gore's rights to challenge the decision but it would have dragged it on for several weeks/months while an exhaustive recount (that might not have changed anything, honestly) was undertaken. the large number of undervotes and overvotes that were DQ'd from the florida election had alot to do with it and a case could also have been made for leveling voter fraud against the republican party in FL, but that would have been a political nightmare and I respect Gore's decision to let it all slide away - he certainly seems much happier now that he can focus only on the issues he genuinely cares about, anyway.

finally, Obama was raised agnostic and while he is a christian convert, he belongs to the UCC - which is quite possible the most laid back of all protestant religions (a UCC friend of mine once summed this up rather nicely: it is not even necessary to believe in the divinity of Christ to be a member (or a member church) of the UCC.) when he talks about restoring faith in your government, he means explicitly the secular meaning: to wit (thank you wiktionary) "a trust in the intentions or abilities of a person or object".

While I don't expect this last point to change your mind necessarily (honestly, if the green party were more viable or I wasn't in a swing state, I would probably be casting a vote for Cynthia McKinney this year) I think it is important to help people be aware of -all- candidates positions, so they can best make their own decisions with all available information.

[Olo401]

the electoral college protects smaller states (that's right, not only do we have a representative democracy, we have a representative representative democracy. is this like a trace buster buster? ) and generally speaking, does exactly what it is meant to do. as long as the united states continues to recognize states' rights, the electoral college in -some- form, needs to remain in place.

A week or two ago I posted my views on the electoral college - it, along with the House of Representatives, need to be greatly expanded to both properly represent the growth in the population and to bring back balance which has actually given less-populated states more influence in the electoral college and the Congress.

Whether most states should continue to use winner-take-all bloc voting to cast their electoral college ballots is a matter for each state to decide individually, and if you don't like how your state does it, it is within your power to lobby your state government to change their policy.

I have to agree with this.. it only makes sense for the electoral college to be proportional, or at the very least per majority in each congressional district.

[Amele]

the electoral college protects smaller states (that's right, not only do we have a representative democracy, we have a representative representative democracy. is this like a trace buster buster? ) and generally speaking, does exactly what it is meant to do. as long as the united states continues to recognize states' rights, the electoral college in -some- form, needs to remain in place.

A week or two ago I posted my views on the electoral college - it, along with the House of Representatives, need to be greatly expanded to both properly represent the growth in the population and to bring back balance which has actually given less-populated states more influence in the electoral college and the Congress.

not entirely sure what you're trying to say here: it's pretty indisputable that (as an example) California has more clout in the house of representatives than Wyoming. If your issue is with the equal representation of all states in the senate, my response would generally be that that's the purpose of the upper chamber.

if your issue is merely that the house of representatives runs into issues with the grain not being fine enough so to speak (each representative today represents something like ~700,000 constituents) I could agree in theory, except that the house is already near (if not at) the reasonable limit for how many members the body could realistically support and still allow for classical operation of the body. (it is already nearly 3 times dunbar's number; which is why you see most state's representatives voting either in lockstep with their party or with their state's delegation.)


representative democracy has it's faults, of course. but as far as systems of implementing representative democracy go; the united states has done a pretty good job. The big issues to my mind are making congressmen more accessible to the general public and reducing the effect that special interest groups and lobbyists can have on the political agenda.

[Charla]

He isn't talking about the house, just the electoral college. And because each state gets at least 3 electors, it tends to overrepresent tiny states, even though it doesn't underrepresent large states. As a result, a number of states have a more significant say than they would under a one person, one vote system. As such, the system "protects" smaller states.

edit: Apparently I didn't bother to read usernames and thought that Amele was disagreeing with his own post, then reiterated what he had said both times.

[aurik]

And at the same time protects smaller states' interests. Again, it's a balance of direct democracy and a confederation.

[Amele]

He isn't talking about the house, just the electoral college. And because each state gets at least 3 electors, it tends to overrepresent tiny states, even though it doesn't underrepresent large states. As a result, a number of states have a more significant say than they would under a one person, one vote system. As such, the system "protects" smaller states.

he did pretty clearly state: electoral college and congress (emphasis mine).

and my whole point was that the purpose of the electoral college (and the upper house) _is_ to protect the smaller states; it's the same reason that many procedural votes and several constitutionally mandated votes in the senate require a super-majority (60% as opposed to 50%+1) notably including cloture to end a filibuster.

there's a concept in political science often referred to as "Tyranny of the Majority" which is what these sorts of rules are expressly meant to limit. (basically, the scenario where the majority can rule in such a way as to place their interests so far above the minorities' interests as to be comparable in cruelty to tyrannical despots.)


this is why you elect your congress by direct election (in most states) but your president by indirect election (because the president is not simply meant to be representative of the majority's view, but of the best interests for America, which is precisely why the Constitution is framed to insulate the process from the mob.)

note that this differs from the way that parties select candidates (where any 'voice' provided to private citizens or rank-and-file members of the party is entirely magnanimous and has nothing to do with any rights or duties apportioned to either the party or the citizen.)

[sephir]

Nader has done alot of good in the past (he was behind things like seatbelts and airbags) But I dont think he would be a serious option as a 3rd party candidate. Bloomberg definitely would be, he is well respected among business people and is very centralized in his politics. But I doubt he go for it.

Im mostly a Clinton supporter, but I know how so many people seem to think she is too liberal (I laugh at this) and therefore unelectable. Obama does have a very good chance at winning, but although he does talk a lot about change he never talks about how this change will be done and I see this as a sort of "all talk no action". He almost never talks about policy instead he campaigns on his theme of change.

Mcain is odd in a way. Before the election he seemed like a "red conservative" (Canadian term, a conservative with liberal actions) opposing the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 calling them one of the worst decisions made because it plunged the economy back into deficit. But since he began campaigning he has changed and has addopted a more right-wing fox news style to him, which reminds me a bit of Bush Sr. Im not saying he would be bad for the country, but I dont think the economy could sustain another tax cut with the mass debt that you are currently in.

Canada went into significant debt back in the '70's and '80's from a similar action of cutting taxes in hopes of spurring more economic growth to create more income but we learned our lesson. And as a result we suffered for close to a decade of lackluster services, problems with infrastructure etc. Only in the last 10 or so years are we really digging ourselves out of the ditch and restoring services that we had before lost. In comparison we had maybe 5% of your current debt, for the equivilent of 10% of your population (so you have double our debt) and it took us this long to dig out of the hole. Per person our economies are about the same in terms of productivity, just we have 1/10 of your population.

[Woozie]

Hillary keeps making me laugh in this debate. She keeps talking out of turn, and wouldn't even let the moderator go to commercial break at first.

[Woozie]

Yeah, I know, a little off topic, but this is the political discussion thread now lol

As a person without health insurance, I've been wondering what the approaches of Hillary and Obama would be. From the debate alone, I still can't tell who's plan makes more sense because it seems so similar, but overall, I've been *slightly* more pleased with Hillary's answers than Obama's, somewhat. I'm the type of person who's very indecisive, so I probably wont be sure who to vote for until Tuesday. As of right now, I'm leaning towards Obama, but that could change based on this debate.

[Charla]

Hillary keeps making me laugh in this debate. She keeps talking out of turn, and wouldn't even let the moderator go to commercial break at first.

That's probably her idea of "going all out".

As for your health care problem, if you're not dead broke and you don't plan on getting a job with benefits, you'll probably be in the same situation when something does get passed (in a year and a half). Besides, you probably want to get covered before then anyway.

[Woozie]

Hillary keeps making me laugh in this debate. She keeps talking out of turn, and wouldn't even let the moderator go to commercial break at first.

That's probably her idea of "going all out".

As for your health care problem, if you're not dead broke and you don't plan on getting a job with benefits, you'll probably be in the same situation when something does get passed (in a year and a half). Besides, you probably want to get covered before then anyway.

Yeah, I do want to get covered asap, but why would I still be in this situation when something does get passed? I don't know exactly how their plans work but I was hoping it would be more affordable at the least.

My situation is that I was on medicaid most of my life because I grew up in poverty. When I moved out from my grandmother, I was making nearly minimum wage and wasn't getting many hours from my job, so I was still eligible for foodstamps and health care. Then I quit the job I had and picked up two jobs at the University in Akron. The amount I'm making is just *barely* too high to be eligible for foodstamps or medicaid anymore, but still way too low to afford to buy my own health care. If healthcare was just a bit cheaper I could probably still squeeze it into my budget without taking a huge blow to my living expenses in other areas. I'm not even asking for much, I just need it to be a *bit* cheaper than it is now.

[Norelco]

I think Hilary means well, but I fear that her coming off as a defensive bitch is going to hurt her chances. Obama could calmly proclaim that he was a Muslim, have his head split open with a green alien singing the oscar meyer weiner song in German while zeig heiling and still come off as more eloquent and likeable than this she-bitch.

That's not to say I dislike Hilary's platform completely. She made a pretty good point...I've been watching all of these debates and they pretty much always have her answer the questions first, giving Obama the last word on every subject. It also gives Obama a chance to listen to Hilary's platforms and go "hey, that's a pretty fucking good idea, I'll use that too and say I thought of that all along."

Not saying this is the case, but it's the impression I'm getting.

[pohibaba]

Nothing is impossible. Other states, California for example, already have a similar system implemented. Other countries as well have it and it works incredibly well. The states that already have a system like this have shown huge support over the internet.

Do you live in California? If you did, you'd realize how bad an idea of direct democracy is. It ends in moronic and unconstitutional laws such as our 3-strikes law. We elect people to make laws for us for a reason, they are simply capable of doing it better.

And to everyone else, Constitutional Republic is a much better description of our government than Representative Democracy, not like it really matters.

[Keno]

Nothing is impossible. Other states, California for example, already have a similar system implemented. Other countries as well have it and it works incredibly well. The states that already have a system like this have shown huge support over the internet.

Do you live in California? If you did, you'd realize how bad an idea of direct democracy is. It ends in moronic and unconstitutional laws such as our 3-strikes law. We elect people to make laws for us for a reason, they are simply capable of doing it better.

And to everyone else, Constitutional Republic is a much better description of our government than Representative Democracy, not like it really matters.

I don't know man, without our direct democracy I wouldn't be blazing this fine medical mj right now. Damn I wish this site had some stoner smilies like others do ;;

[Charla]

Nothing is impossible. Other states, California for example, already have a similar system implemented. Other countries as well have it and it works incredibly well. The states that already have a system like this have shown huge support over the internet.

Do you live in California? If you did, you'd realize how bad an idea of direct democracy is. It ends in moronic and unconstitutional laws such as our 3-strikes law. We elect people to make laws for us for a reason, they are simply capable of doing it better.

And to everyone else, Constitutional Republic is a much better description of our government than Representative Democracy, not like it really matters.

I don't know man, without our direct democracy I wouldn't be blazing this fine medical mj right now. Damn I wish this site had some stoner smilies like others do ;;

Like he said, lawmaking by referendum works a lot better for some things than others, and mandatory sentencing laws are an example of a bad idea to put straight on the ballot (I'm gonna go ahead and include this gem in there too).

[Amele]

Yeah, I know, a little off topic, but this is the political discussion thread now lol

As a person without health insurance, I've been wondering what the approaches of Hillary and Obama would be. From the debate alone, I still can't tell who's plan makes more sense because it seems so similar, but overall, I've been *slightly* more pleased with Hillary's answers than Obama's, somewhat. I'm the type of person who's very indecisive, so I probably wont be sure who to vote for until Tuesday. As of right now, I'm leaning towards Obama, but that could change based on this debate.

the crib notes:

both want to work with existing insurance systems (not a single-payer system).
both want to reduce costs, obama primarily by forcing larger groups (especially through public plans similar to the one enjoyed by congress) clinton primarily by providing subsidies to help affordability.

obama intends to mandate coverage for children. preferring to allow adults to retain choice. his system would also allow people up to age 25 to be covered under their parents' plan. those who elect not to and later require isurance assistance to pay for health costs, will be allowed to join at the hospital but there will be some penalty associated with gaming the system in this way.

clinton intends a private citizen mandate for all citizens (literally, you must prove to the gov't that you have coverage from somewhere, public or private) and if you do not have coverage, there will be some sort of penalty. garnishing of wages was one possibility that she mentioned in a debate.

arguably, obama's is better funded (at this time, it is clearer where the funds for his plan would come from) and will definitely cost less from a tax/gov't standpoint. this is not to say that clinton's is not funded, just that she has not made it clear where funding would come from yet.


personally, I prefer obama's plan because it doesn't force you up front to purchase health insurance before you feel you can afford it. clinton's organization claims that this means that insurance companies will continue to deny coverage *shrugs* both will introduce a public coverage plan similar to the congressional one that you can buy into.

given your position, clinton's plan may (At first) be bad for you, since the mandate would be in place before cost reductions are fully realized, and if you are above the medicaid line, it is likely that you will be above the 'free/fully subsidized' line in her plan.

[Woozie]

Thanks, Amele, that cleared up a lot for me. And yeah, it does look like Obama's plan would work better for me.

[sunb1ind]

Nothing is impossible. Other states, California for example, already have a similar system implemented. Other countries as well have it and it works incredibly well. The states that already have a system like this have shown huge support over the internet.

Do you live in California? If you did, you'd realize how bad an idea of direct democracy is. It ends in moronic and unconstitutional laws such as our 3-strikes law. We elect people to make laws for us for a reason, they are simply capable of doing it better.

And to everyone else, Constitutional Republic is a much better description of our government than Representative Democracy, not like it really matters.

You know, I actually saw this coming. The 3 strikes amendment is a classic argument lobbyists use against using any form of direct democracy. The 3 strikes law was never implemented for the people's interests. They advertised it would make crime decrease, deter would-be first time criminals, serious offenders etc. All they did was successfully trick people into thinking they were safer while filling up the prisons even faster.

What have we learned about America's prison system? We hold the title for the MOST incarcerated people in the world COMBINED. The US even beats Hitler and Stalin's era on percentage of the nation's population that is incarcerated. More people locked up = more $$$$$

Again, as mentioned before, the problem is not direct democracy, its how it is implemented. Its also important the people are well educated in politics to prevent bad policy from being imposed. I have yet to hear a bill being passed in Switzerland with such immoral caliber like the 3 strikes law.


It's discouraging to come here and have a debate about democracy when I see these ridiculous discussions about the so-called differences in Hilary and Obama's plans.

They both don't have plans for a true universal healthcare that this nation needs. Its impossible for them to do so, how will they pay for this? I don't have to remind you about this nation's debt. They both don't support a progressive fair tax system. There is no way they will be able to create any change away from the stranglehold that insurance companies have on America. Obama's theme for "change" is nothing more than politics as usual.

I think the most obvious example of how these two clowns are putting on the same show, wearing different costumes, is how they both love war :nikkei: , just like our chimp in-house does. Here's a brief highlight of one of the best debates the country has ever witnessed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSoCHfyYCew

Hilary is just plain scary in that clip, Bush has got nothing on her batshitcrazyevil laugh. If you're still thinkin Obama is different because he didn't vote on the Lieberman bill for the Iran War, even though not voting is the same as voting Yes, then here's some of his great war commentary to awe at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfe8gxusBUI

I know there are some people on this board that will agree with the perspective on Clinton/Obama. Its just frustrating to read through when trying to discuss more important topics like fundamental changes in our democracy. On another note, the documentary clip I mentioned about Switzerland was found, but the video linked to YouTube was dead so I'll make an attempt today to search for another one today.

[Beckwin]

ITT sunblind posts conspiracy theory bullshit. Grow the fuck up; honestly you're the type that would be posting conspiracy theory bullshit about Gravel if he was considered a contender right now.

Why did you ask him [Obama] alone whom he's planning to nuke?
I did not single him out.

Yes, you did. I watched the video three times.
Oh, please. Watch it again. He said that everything is on the table with respect to Iran, which is code for nukes. That's why I went at him.

Shit like that is why he stopped getting invited to debates; if you're just gonna accuse your opponents of dropping nukes without anything to back it up, then it just makes you a batshit and angry old man.

Gravel on Sunday night appeared at Phillips Exeter Academy in Exeter to speak to its high school students and showed no sign his campaign had gone up in smoke. Indeed, in a contest of booze versus pot, Gravel said light 'em up.

"I'm sure a lot of you have tripped out on alcohol," Gravel told the students. "It's a lot safer to do it on marijuana."

As if that wasn't enough, according to a tape of the appearance shown by WMUR-TV in New Hampshire, Gravel advised, "And with respect to other drugs, if you've got a problem with coke, go to a doctor, get a prescription and get it filled at a drug store.

The question here is: How would conspiracy theorists have twisted his stance on drugs if Gravel was currently still a contender? And of course, how many topics would you make about it?

Oh, and Gravel hasn't always been anti-war. He was considered a hawk during Vietnam, didn't show up for the vote to stop the draft, etc. Now maybe through 20/20 hindsight he learned a few things, but it also makes him a big ass for for some of his more recent statements.

And are you saying the problem with a direct democracy isn't the direct democracy, but that people are too stupid?

[Charla]

I think he's saying that people are too good at getting tricked by the numerous evil empires trying to saddle California with bad laws. Personally, I just think most people don't bother to understand criminal justice beyond "send em all to jail so I'll be safe", and occasionally, "we can't have pedophiles living in this city! I had no idea there were pedophiles in this city!"

Did I mention Prop lol83?