Don't tell me what your opponent can't do, tell me what you CAN do

You know, every year when elections come around, from local to national, I get tired very fast of all of the mud-slinging that the parties do against each other and I'm really sick of it.

Honestly, I don't care about what that person can't do or how they voted. And you know why? Because the ad only tells you what they voted against, not what they voted for in it's place, or what the candidate voted for because they were voting against something else.

For example, you will often hear that a candidate is evil because they voted against a bill that would have given our children 1.5 million dollars for physical improvements to their schools and school supplies. But what the ad doesn't say is that the candidate voted against that bill because they are pushing a different bill that will use that 1.5 million dollars towards raising the salaries of the teachers in the school districts of the children.

The other thing I'm tired of is hearing why the other candidate is bad. I don't care what that candidate can't do, I want to know what you CAN do. Just because the other candidate can't get out of bed in the morning and tie is own shoes doesn't mean that you can, or maybe you're hiding the fact that you can't brush your teeth while standing up.

I'm just tired of these campaign ads that talk to the lowest denominator and use sensationalism to win votes rather than actually talking about issues.

Although it does remind me of why the US has an electoral college for choosing a president and once again I'm reminded of why I don't mind it.

Too bad the electoral collage has never gone against popular vote(correct me if I am wrong).

This is one reason why I like the debates because you can hear some plans. Take Kerry wanting to work with Europe on more sanctions and things in Iran and starting Bi-lateral talks again w/ N. Korea in addition to keeping up talks w/the other countries Bush started to involve. Bringing in other nations to help w/ rebuilding Iraq and sharing some of the cost(or at least TRYING).

I like that Kerry is going to give buisnesses insentives to stop outsourcing and raise taxes on those who are making $200,000 or more. I like how he wants to give that $4000 a year to people so they can attend collage.

The debates have helped to make what the candidates want to do clear instead of all the stupid ass ads like swift boats and crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm

Too bad the electoral collage has never gone against popular vote(correct me if I am wrong).

---

I just like the electoral college because the common citizen in the US is too stupid and uneducated (both on the issues and uneducated in general) to vote properly.

Plus the debates can help you see a lot about someone's character and track record when they are asked what are three mistakes they have made and what they have done to correct them and the dodge the question and talk about what they've done that's good (Sorry, Bush's answer to that question on Friday night really pissed me off. The man won't admit that he's made even the smallest mistakes, which is a big problem to me).

Television is rarely, if ever, a positive medium. In fact, most news in general isn't too pleasant. Ever here the phrase "if it bleeds it leads"?

I agree that sensationalism rules the airwaves, but I would have so much more respect for a candidate if they avoided the mudslinging and pointed out why they did what they did in their ads and why it was good for us rather than throw mud back. The only problem with that is that then the common person will say "Oh, they aren't attacking their opponent, their oppoenent must be perfect because they can't find anything to rag on them about." Sadly, another case of accomodating the lowest common denominator.

There have been studies done that show that negative campaigning
reduces the desire to vote. The point here is that the candidates know
this and they've taken advantage of it. It's not just negative campaigning
to make the other guy look bad, it's a way to make complete control
easier.

.opt

Quote:

---

Too bad the electoral collage has never gone against popular vote(correct me if I am wrong).

---

I believe in our last election, the electoral college did. Correct ME if IM wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

I believe in our last election, the electoral college did. Correct ME if IM wrong.

---

You are correct.

The electoral college, as stupid as it sounds especially in the case of this
last election, is needed. The reason for it is so that candidates won't be
able to just go to a couple places with huge populations and get all those
votes, and ignore the rest of the country. It evens the playing field a bit,
even though the amount of votes is based on population, it sort of
gives more of a voice to the areas with small populations than they would
have if it were all based on popular vote.

.opt

You misunderstood what I said. In each area where there is an electoral vote. That vote always goes with the popularity of that specific area. So in say Cook county they vote democratic then that electoral vote goes towards the democrates in the state.

That is what I am saying has never gone against popularity.

It does seem quite silly that a 51% - 49% win for a party in a given area is the same, as far as the electoral college is concerned, as a 80%-20% win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm

You misunderstood what I said. In each area where there is an electoral vote. That vote always goes with the popularity of that specific area. So in say Cook county they vote democratic then that electoral vote goes towards the democrates in the state.

That is what I am saying has never gone against popularity.

---

It usually doesn't but it has. Your last election was such a situation where the 'popularity vote' or however you call it was in favour of Gore but the electoral college said Bush.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/spe...lege/more.html

Well you link pointed out 2 times what I was asking happened. 1988 was one instance but I don't know if I would call what happened in 2000 one. Read near the very bottom of your link to get what I am talking about.

I forgot to post this but I read someplace that the electoral collage has only gone against popular vote on a per electoraeee basis 10 times in our history(note: This never effected the outcome of the election).

I see what ur saying, but we arent voting FOR Kerry we are voting AGAINST Bush. Which is why its important to see what Bush cant do.

Not everyone is voting against Bush. One of my friends was going to vote for Bush just because he didn't know what Kerry stood for or what he was going to do. Not being Bush was not good enough. The debates changed that though.