Clinton wins Indiana, Obama North Carolina. Clinton cancels tommorow's appointments

[Satimasu]

Re: Clinton wins Indiana, Obama North Carolina. Clinton cancels tommorow's appointmen

I doubt it.

Doubting Murphie... Shame on you!

I don't really like any of the candidates. But then, I've never really liked any of the candidates I've been able to vote for. BBQ is right, this stuff is corrupted. Just like everything else in Washington. But yeah, Clinton doesn't have a chance unless she steals this away from Obama. I'm not going to doubt that will happen.

[Murphie]

Re: Clinton wins Indiana, Obama North Carolina. Clinton cancels tommorow's appointmen

As BBQ also said, nobody actually listens to your voice. Your showing up to vote does not truly impact the election. Even if your candidate gets a simple majority of the votes, they might not win; and even if they win, there's no guarantee that they will impact things like they claim to, like you think they will; and especially not how you want them to.

You can say what you want about you endorsing whatever candidate we get if you don't vote; but how is voting for a third party candidate who is closer to your views than the R or D nominee any different? You're still taking your potential vote and using it on something that will have no real impact on the election (except to possibly take away from a first party candidate that you would've been ok with; thus shooting yourself in the foot.). Sure, you might be able to increase a number in Almanacs, and you might get a little bit of press for your movement, but you will not have any effect on the election, and if you do it will likely not be in your favor.

You can say that not voting is losing your voice; but what's the point of having a voice if there's no one around to hear it?

Agree to disagree!
______________________________

Doubting Murphie... Shame on you!

So you still don't get it, I guess.

I don't really like any of the candidates. But then, I've never really liked any of the candidates I've been able to vote for. BBQ is right, this stuff is corrupted. Just like everything else in Washington. But yeah, Clinton doesn't have a chance unless she steals this away from Obama. I'm not going to doubt that will happen.

She can't.

[Feba]

Re: Clinton wins Indiana, Obama North Carolina. Clinton cancels tommorow's appointmen

Agree to disagree!

There's pretty much no other choice. But we CAN agree that your vote doesn't necessarily impact specific laws, policies, and actions in a way that you would want, right?

BBQ is right, this stuff is corrupted.

It's not even really that it's corrupted, it's just a really bad and outdated system, and two groups in it have gained so much power that it's pretty much impossible for anyone else to move ahead. Pretty much every comedy ever has spoofed this at some point or another-- Simpson's Treehouse of Horror where Kang and Kodos take the place of Clinton and Dole; someone very specifically said "I'm voting for a third party candidate!", to which the reply was "Go ahead, THROW YOUR VOTE AWAY!". There was also that South Park episode with the giant douche and a turd sandwich.

What corruption there is isn't nearly as much in how the system works as much as it is it's resistance to change. It's like the criminalization of drugs-- one of the big reasons the situation can't be improved is because there's an entire industry behind it (officers to track down users and sellers, courts and lawyers to find them guilty, prisons to hold them). Likewise, it's in the interests of members of congress to simply increase how much they earn, their benefits package, and generally maintain the status quo.

[Satimasu]

Re: Clinton wins Indiana, Obama North Carolina. Clinton cancels tommorow's appointmen

So you still don't get it, I guess.

I don't remember saying anything about 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence. I meant us staying on the offensive. I guess Iraq was a bad example. Not wanting for them to be on our shores before we actually stand up against them. But hey, I'm sure we just talked to the terrorist nicely they'd leave us alone...right?

Not like it matters anyway, we can't even pass anything against illegal immigration. We don't need a blasted fence, we need to get rid of the loopholes for social programs and anchor babies. They need a reason to stay here and we're giving them one.

She can't.

It's the Clintons, anything is possible.

I know, but this is one situation where it's better to educate someone than just point and laugh because they don't know. The amount of people who think otherwise is scarily high.

Oh, that's okay. That's how my life has always been. I'd rather people laugh at my expense than someone else's.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Clinton wins Indiana, Obama North Carolina. Clinton cancels tommorow's appointmen

Just to clarify, I don't necessarily think its the Dem/Republicans that thwart our voice, but more to the end that the members of the Electoral College that do it.

It should bother all Americans that the members of the Electoral College can vote any way they damn well please, they are not elected to represent us and have the power to override the voice and will of the people to a certain extent. That's fucking wrong. The vote they're supposed to cast should be the respresentation of the majority in thier district.

How can we trust these people when we cannot elect them? They're appointed by those in power and can be swayed even more easily by big money than a politican can. They have no political loyalty which, in this case, would be a bad thing.

The Electoral College, as it stands, needs to be dismantled and restructured, its voice should reflect that of the people. Representation by population is what they are intended to reflect. When they do not do this, our votes are rendered meaningless.

[Cometgreen]

Re: Clinton wins Indiana, Obama North Carolina. Clinton cancels tommorow's appointmen

Abstaining from the vote sends a message as well. You could argue that the message is kinda muddled, because how should one know if you're making a statement or just being lazy, but that's true no matter how you vote. How would my vote for the lesser of two evils be taken as that, and not an endorsement for that lesser evil? I dislike McCain more than Obama, but I don't want to support Obama's policies; likewise, I'd say I dislike Clinton more than McCain, but I don't want to vote for perpetual warfare. I will probably do a write-in vote if NY allows it, but I'm not going to waste my time if it turns out to be a busy day for me.

I think one reason voter apathy* is so high is because a lot of people are convinced that their vote doesn't matter. And I'm not talking about Diebold or anything like that, but because government gets what government wants. The majority of Americans seem to want out of Iraq, and both houses of Congress were given to the Dems in 2006 very much for that reason, but we're still in Iraq. And unless we have a ballsy president, we will have troops in Iraq for 100 years. There was a lot of outrage at the immigration bill last summer, but I'm sure it will be brought up again and implemented in some way.

*Apathy at its best: Your vote would have really counted - Weird news - MSNBC.com

[Murphie]

Re: Clinton wins Indiana, Obama North Carolina. Clinton cancels tommorow's appointmen

The message is more than muddled. It's completely obscured. No one but you is going to know why you didn't vote, thus ensuring that there is no message at all.

[Cometgreen]

Re: Clinton wins Indiana, Obama North Carolina. Clinton cancels tommorow's appointmen

No one but me knows why I vote for who I vote for, too.

[Murphie]

Re: Clinton wins Indiana, Obama North Carolina. Clinton cancels tommorow's appointmen

Yes, but they don't need to know why you voted for the message to get across. They just need to know how. There is a huge difference.

[Cometgreen]

Re: Clinton wins Indiana, Obama North Carolina. Clinton cancels tommorow's appointmen

And if I disagree with all the choices? What do I do then? I also don't understand the difference between why and how. Abstaining does not count as how? Again, how does one know to take my vote for X as a repudiation of Y, and not as support for X?

I recall there being great concern that evangelicals might stay home this election year if so-and-so were nominated (it may have been Romney). My refusal to vote does send a message, particularly to my party. 2004 should have sent a message not that the country embraced Bush's policies, but that the Dems need to avoid picking piss-poor candidates. I'm hoping that, this year, the GOP realizes they need to go back to real conservative principles. That's the message I want to send, and I can't possibly do that by voting for even less conservative candidates. Though voting is a lazy and ineffective way to send a message anyway. If you want your voice heard, you need to get involved more than pulling a lever every four years.

And BBQ, you seem to be giving way too much credit to the Electoral College. There have not been many instances in which an elector voted against the way their state voted, and if they do it's usually a stupid mistake. To blame the entire 'system' on them seems pretty unfair. Unless you're confusing the EC with a party's national convention, but I assume you know the difference.

[Akashimo]

Re: Clinton wins Indiana, Obama North Carolina. Clinton cancels tommorow's appointmen

The Electoral College, as it stands, needs to be dismantled and restructured, its voice should reflect that of the people. Representation by population is what they are intended to reflect. When they do not do this, our votes are rendered meaningless.

True, that it needs to be restructured. But by population would shift all of the campaign fights to highly populated states, than as the trend is now, swing states.

If anything, we need a mix of the two to the effect of our congress is set up. Set number of votes and population bonus, while population is more favoring to those of both swing and highly populated states.

[Murphie]

Re: Clinton wins Indiana, Obama North Carolina. Clinton cancels tommorow's appointmen

And if I disagree with all the choices? What do I do then? I also don't understand the difference between why and how. Abstaining does not count as how? Again, how does one know to take my vote for X as a repudiation of Y, and not as support for X?

We were discussing how they know you are abstaining for a reason as opposed to just being lazy. They have no way of knowing why, just as they have no way of knowing why you voted if you do vote. But they don't care. They just care that you either did or didn't vote. And if you did vote, how you voted. Unless they decide to poll the populace after the election to find out why people who didn't vote didn't vote, or why those who did, did (which seems incredibly unlikely) then the why is irrelevant.

My refusal to vote does send a message, particularly to my party.

How does it send a message? How do they know you're not one of the millions of people who just didn't bother to vote?

That's the message I want to send, and I can't possibly do that by voting for even less conservative candidates. Though voting is a lazy and ineffective way to send a message anyway. If you want your voice heard, you need to get involved more than pulling a lever every four years.

And not voting is an even lazier/more ineffective method of sending a message.

I agree completely that if you really want your voice to be heard, more involvement is the answer, not less. Hence why I say that not voting is a dumb way to try and make your point.

[Feba]

Re: Clinton wins Indiana, Obama North Carolina. Clinton cancels tommorow's appointmen

I don't remember saying anything about 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence.

You said that the war has kept us from other attacks. Given the only 'attack' on America in recent history was from a terrorist group, and we're in a war with a country that was not assisting said groups, your statements don't make sense.

The message is more than muddled. It's completely obscured.

The same thing goes for any system that relies on pure numbers (votes) instead of opinions (some forms of consensus)

The meaning behind your vote is completely obscured no matter what you vote for. The only way to fix that is to speak your mind. Given how much easier publishing has gotten lately (be it distributing your writings electronically as a book, a blog, or just through word of mouth on social networks and such), you can get your opinion heard by other people-- but that doesn't mean that a government cares (or has reason to)

The only 'message' sent by a vote for a particular candidate is 'this is the one I'm voting for'. It doesn't mean you endorse them (see the lesser of the evils comment above), that you like them, or that you even accept their policies and decisions. There are basically two ways to really send a message-- either be directly involved with the government (be it in a very small government ruled by consensus, or a large government where you are elected to a legislative body); or by spreading them via publication and such.


And Murphie, last I checked, US ballots do not have a "none of the above" option. If you truly do not support anyone, there is no way to vote and still be able to say that you find all of the candidates deplorable. Even if it were, voting for 'none of the above' still wouldn't do anything to actually get your voice heard beyond "you suck."

Short of actual democracy, I prefer a voting system that gives multiple 'votes' to each voter. For example, a system where you're given three votes, a 'first choice', 'second choice', and 'third choice'-- that would allow you to say "Ok, I'd like this candidate, but short of that this one, and if that doesn't work out I suppose this guy". This would allow people that support a third party candidate to vote how they really feel, without feeling like they're throwing their vote away. There's also giving each person a certain amount of votes, and allowing them to divide them up between the candidates. For example, if someone was given 20 points, they might put 7 for Nader, 3 for Paul, and 10 for Obama; or they might put the full 20 in Paul, or really any other combination for whatever candidates they might choose. This would help third party voters and independents, as well as undecideds. There are plenty of other systems that would work in a similar manner, and they'd all have their kinks and such to work out, and really there's enough depth in there to start three or four new threads, but you get my point.

But really, any system which has people vote for faces instead of opinions is broken. Not only because that face is the result of tons of public relations work which almost certainly isn't very representative, but also because that face is probably not going to truly reflect the views of the people who voted for it.

For example, I generally consider myself libertarian (philosophy, mind you, not party) with somewhat liberal social views; no candidate I could elect would vote in a way I'd agree with on all issues I consider important, let alone a majority. Heck, conservatives are supposed to favor lower government spending, smaller government, and so on, right? Now, I've only been around for about the past two presidents, and I'll admit my history could use some touching up, but it never seems to work out that way.

EDIT: Let me clarify that. I generally consider that there are three options for a 'free' state; Anarchy (which I don't think can work on a large scale, and I don't think a modern society could be adapted to), a libertarian government (basically, a government that works to stay small and out of people's business), or a communist state (As in, communism, not as in socialist fascism). I say this because when you try to balance competing political philosophies, things tend to wind up in a far bigger mess; and lines get drawn in illogical places (for example, legalizing cigarettes and alcohol, but criminalizing cannabis). Any one of those systems would need to provide people with their rights. I don't see 'basic rights' as being rights, I see them as being a concession on the part of a government. I see "You can do anything within your rights, but must ask permission before you do anything within the rights of others" as how rights should work. That view is held in some form or another in most religions and philosophy (Golden Rule), and is also the most logical place to draw the line. It also holds no previous religious, traditional, social, and so on views of whether something should be allowed or not; so there is no concern of pushing your morality on others.

[Murphie]

Re: Clinton wins Indiana, Obama North Carolina. Clinton cancels tommorow's appointmen

The meaning behind your vote is completely obscured no matter what you vote for. The only way to fix that is to speak your mind. Given how much easier publishing has gotten lately (be it distributing your writings electronically as a book, a blog, or just through word of mouth on social networks and such), you can get your opinion heard by other people-- but that doesn't mean that a government cares (or has reason to)

The only 'message' sent by a vote for a particular candidate is 'this is the one I'm voting for'. It doesn't mean you endorse them (see the lesser of the evils comment above), that you like them, or that you even accept their policies and decisions. There are basically two ways to really send a message-- either be directly involved with the government (be it in a very small government ruled by consensus, or a large government where you are elected to a legislative body); or by spreading them via publication and such.

Which is what I was saying.

And Murphie, last I checked, US ballots do not have a "none of the above" option. If you truly do not support anyone, there is no way to vote and still be able to say that you find all of the candidates deplorable. Even if it were, voting for 'none of the above' still wouldn't do anything to actually get your voice heard beyond "you suck."

Well, you can not fill in either box if you like. But it's still not ideal. That said, it's the system we have. If people don't like it, they should get involved in trying to change that.

[Kitalrez]

Re: Clinton wins Indiana, Obama North Carolina. Clinton cancels tommorow's appointmen

You can say that not voting is losing your voice; but what's the point of having a voice if there's no one around to hear it?

Thank you, Feba. Had I been around the last few hours to defend my position better, I think this is what I'd like to have said.

Back in 2000, I voted for Nader. I'm a lifelong democrat. Why Nader? Because the first time I voted was in 1996, in that year, my state of Utah voted Bill Clinton in dead last behind not only Bob Dole, but Ross freakin' Perot! I mean, c'mon... So, that next election, I figured I'd give my support to a third party. Gore will never win my state, and with any luck, having the Green Party pull a showing at all would be enough to get them on the ballot later on. Maybe I'd get to see a debate with some credible options. Four years later, nope, still Red v. Blue. I don't even think Green was on the ticket.

Right now, it's like Akashimo said, Idiot vs. Moron. Who's it gonna be? Hell, when Clinton faced off against Dole, they were both trying to out-Moderate each other. Who's more middle of the road? Futurama did an episode on this later on, when Nixon wins president of Earth. He runs third party against Jack Johnson and John Jackson, who are basically clones of one another and run on exactly the same platform. This is usually what you see in the general election here. Both try to play to the same audience with only slight differences. In this situation, does a whole lot change?


What this country really needs is third parties that are halfway credible. You see this in Europe. Granted, it's far from perfect, but you've got a whole gamut of parties for any political ideology. You have Christian Democrats for the evangelical types, you have labor for the liberal types. Hell, in parts of the continent Red Army Faction could probably post a credible candidate. Why not here? Somehow we got entrenched in two parties and stuck there. It doesn't make things simpler or more cost efficient, it just means you're stuck in a lot of situations voting between two candidates you hate. Maybe you just hate one a little less. In that situation, arguing that you shouldn't just stay home is stupid. Here's your choice, if you vote for candidate A, you get punched in the face. On the other hand, if you vote for candidate B, you get punched in the face but on the other cheek. Clearly, you have a completely viable choice here and can't possibly lose. ON WHAT FUCKING PLANET? Either way, the result is the same. At least with a broader candidate base I could get a chance to take one to the breadbasket or heiny.

Going back on topic, though, the reason Hillary should drop is that if she wins she has to do it pretty much by changing everything. She has to do something that looks entirely too much like cheating to win at any cost. Now, think about it. You have a choice between a candidate you think cheated and lied to get the nomination, and one who's completely honest about screwing you over. Do you really win either way?

The thing you haven't done, Murphie is tell me: why? Why should I vote in that scenario? What makes it worth the gas, the effort of pushing the little buttons... why? I don't think you have the answer. You may prove me wrong, but for right now, ya got nothing.

I've seen a lot of campaigns over the years. Rock the Vote, Vote or Die, etc. They never tell me why I should vote. And don't give me the jingoistic crap line about people dying for me to have the freedom to vote. For the last hundred years, if someone died in this military, most of the time it was because they drew the unlucky draft number, and some German, Japanese or North Vietnamese soldier got a good line of sight on them. Grandpa was not driving that tank through the hedgerows of France thinking about how great it was that his grandchildren could vote someday. Knowing the man, he was probably pissed off at his country and hoping Grandma would wait for him. The only time we've really had anyone die in decent numbers who actually asked to be there was this war. It's not even about freedom, and I'm not sure we even know what it was about anymore. You can make soapboxes, you can stand on them and preach about how every vote counts and how we're all fools for staying home. But the fact will always remain, if the situation exists where both choices suck, why bother? Until you can provide a compelling answer to why, you've got nothin'.