I recently conducted a poll amongst the people at my school for a newspaper article. For the most part, everyone polled is registered to vote and does vote (or will be registered soon, in the case of the Running Start students), yet pretty much the exact same number of people feel that the government does not represent their opinions. I see this as a problem, and we need to do something about it pretty soon lest our entire system degenerate even further than it already has.
This is the problem though. As long as there are only two candidates, you only have to be slightly less bad than the other guy. You don't have to believe in good ideas or have done anything. Quite frankly, if Hillary runs in '08 enough people already *hate* her that the Republicans could run a loaf of bread and the loaf of bread wins. That's just not a good way to do things.Originally Posted by Sasquatch
America's most recent election had the highest turnout (in numbers, not percentages) in our history, even though many people were disgusted with both candidates. And it was still, what, barely 100 million? Many times, people must vote for what they consider to be the "lesser of two evils". The candidate I voted for, I didn't like him all that much, there are some things I disagree with him on, and I would have voted for somebody different in a primary--but, that was the candidate, and I voted for him not because I wanted him to be President, but mainly because I didn't want the other guy to be President.
I also noticed that in Iraq, voting made people targets--not just the process of voting, but being a voter and being temporarily "marked" ("inky finger") and everybody being able to tell that person voted for a few days. And still, what was it, seventy-something, eighty-something percent went out and voted? I was out on a route-clearing mission that day, and we must have seen 1500 people walking to polling stations--some dozens of miles away. Iraqis feel so strongly about their new freedom that they're willing to literally risk their lives and walk ten or twenty miles, maybe more, to vote, and us lazy-ass Americans can't turn off Oprah and drive two miles to our local library? It's sickening.
However, I do agree with The Redneck and nik0tine on this. If somebody's too lazy to get out and vote...good. That's one vote that shouldn't be cast.
I also agree with Behold the Viod -- This last election, as I have said, wasn't about the better candidate, it was about who wasn't the worse candidate. But I think the Democrats just put somebody up that was easy to push over so that they wouldn't have to worry about an incumbent come 2008 when they put Hillary up. Mark my words...and I wouldn't doubt Condi will run against her.
I'd let any candidate who was on the official ballot in all 50 states debate. This would make the campaign about ideas. They can't just start demonizing. They'd have to turn 3 other people into satan incarnate. Wouldn't work. So instead they'd have to say what they intend to do.
So with the SS mess it would run something like this
Libertarian: I'd just nix the whole thing.
Republican: private investmant accounts
Democrat: We'd put it in a lockbox
Green: We should raise the SS tax, and then do a means test so that only the truely needy get SS.
See what I mean. Now chances are greater that someone said something that you can get behind. So people would have more interest because someone says things that they agree with. Another thing is that you won't be able to take a poll and change your opinion, as you can today. You are fighting off the other 3 people and chances are that someone else is already where the polls would lead. You change your position and then 3 people are pointing at you yelling "flip-flop" and you lose all credibilty.
Unfortunately only the Republicans and Democrats have the funds to do that on any large scale. The Green Party and the Libertarians can complain all they want, but people won't listen because they won't be able to buy enough advertisement space.
That opens up a whole other can of worms regarding campaign funding reform, but it's a debate that also warrents mention. What can be done to lower the gap that is in existence, wherein only the elite may run for office, thus limiting the potential candidates? Should there be a max cap on how much a candidate can spend? The amount of money that a company can donate to a given candidate? A cap on the amount of commercials a candidate can air? A complete ban of attack ads? Better debates?
What are your thoughts on this?
Take care all.
Government funding only to those who agree to be injected with sodium pentothol so that they always say what's on their mind.
Seriously though I'd probably say a certain amount of money goes to a single campaign budget. That everybody shares equally. That'd probably solve our problems. A bit socialist, but I think I can tolerate it in this instance.
I recall reading a report somewhere that said in order to run for President, and have even a chance, you need $100 million dollars. That's a staggering amount, but makes sense you when look at the amount of commercials and the like that pop up, most of which have little to do with solving problems and more to do with crafting an image which may or may not even be based in reality.
Take care all.
You should only be able to spend $50 million when running for president. That leaves you having to get your message out in ways other than TV ads. It gives other people in Libertarian, Independent and Green parties more of a chance. So from the primaries to election day you can only spend so much. Currently it is 75 million from your party's convention day to election day. The republicans totally pissed me off with that one because they held it way too late and as an effect of that states changed their law so that GW could be on the ballot. Because of this I say from the primary to the Election no party can spend more than 50 mil on running for president.
...umm... The party convention for the incumbent is always held later than that of the challenger, there's nothing they did last election they either party hasn't done when they get the chance too.
Well some states did have laws that said the nominee must be named by a certain date which happened to be before the Republican Convention, but that's all pretty irrelevant anyway.
And the Republicans hate Hillary for the same reason they hate Bill: they have amazing political skills and present a very tough challenge. The Republican Party doesn't hate people like John Kerry because he was eminently beatable. In general, the more strongly negatively the other party reacts to a candidate, the better that candidate is.
You have somewhat of a point, but it's slightly inaccurate. Conservatives don't like the Clintons because they're liberal, dishonest, manipulative, conniving, and corrupt as hell. I don't think anybody would "hate" Hillary more if she ran for President. It might seem that way, because more people would voice their opinions on her during campaigning, but it's not something that they just thought up because she's hard to beat.
I do see the point I believe you were trying to make, however--more is (usually) put forth to top those opponents that present a challenge, and when less is needed (as in, when somebody already knows they'll probably win), less is provided.
But on the other hand, I believe this past Presidential campaign was the costliest in american history, and more people voted than any time in American history.
" and more people voted than any time in American history."
That's because there are more people living in the country than ever before. One of the most misleading facts that came out of this election is that Bush garnered the most votes of any President and Kerry the second most, but that was because there were more people than ever before alive in this country, not because more people voted than ever before. The numbers were still at around 50% of the population.
Take care all.
True, but I was referring to strictly numbers. Still, I believe a higher precentage of the population voted in comparison to other recent elections, but not much higher.
Using numbers instead of percentages in relation to modern statistics can actually severely skew the results. The elections, for example--it's not like the masses turned out to vote, because I'm sure there have been plenty of elections in the past where more of the population (at that time) participated in the voting process. Or, for another example, gas prices, which at this point are "the highest in history", but when inflation is factored in, still lower than gas prices were in the 70s.
Indeed. Context, with regards to so many things, especially numbers, is vital.
Take care all.
Posting Permissions
:temigi: 
