just thought I'd say that...
4 more years!
(P.S. expect me to actually come back and like, read the board and stuff this weekend. That's when my hectic schedule of school, research, and Starcraft will settle down.)
W is for Winner
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
-
Testiculese
- DBB Material Defender
- Posts: 4688
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 3:01 am
-
Sergeant Thorne
- DBB Material Defender
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2001 3:01 am
- Location: Indiana, U.S.A.
Yep, neither candidate was a really good choice, so we got the fun of voting for who we thought would screw up the country less than the other. At least with another term of Bush (IMO), nothing should really change that much (we already know what he's like, and don't have Kerry coming in and changing things up and still be in bad shape), and we can pray for some good candidates for 2008. I'm not holding my breath, though.Testiculese wrote:Doens't matter who won, Tricord. We still lose.
Maybe some of the third-party candidates would be good, but with how everything is set up, it's nearly impossible for them to even have a real chance.
It's about time for some reform on elections, so they better reflect the needs of today's America, and not yesterday's.
What logically should have happened is that neither the dems of the repubs should have had a chance in hell. Other partys with proper candidites should have been winning the votes and therefore making america look like a wide collage of different electorial college vote thingys (if i am understanding the usa voting process). not red vs bluePlebeian wrote:Yep, neither candidate was a really good choice, so we got the fun of voting for who we thought would screw up the country less than the other.Testiculese wrote:Doens't matter who won, Tricord. We still lose.
why can't people vote for anyone but their favourite 2 warring factions when clearly both suck? who knows.
Thats pretty much what its like voting for the big two anymore. Another reason why I didn't vote this year or 4 years ago. Probably wont vote 4 years from now either. I'll see how I feel when I'm 31.Stryker wrote:It's because, for one thing, at this point, hardly anyone knows that there ARE other candidates. For another thing, voting for them is equivalent to throwing your vote in the dirt and stomping on it. It just doesn't do anything.
With all due respect, Tyr, voting for the "big two" is a much better alternative than splitting up into multiparty politics.
Other nations do it, and prefer it that way. Canada, Israel... LOTS of them. I don't think it works better, though. I prefer our two party system. We allow for multiple parties in our system, but the voters never take "third" parties seriously. And even when do, every now and then, as with Ross Perot in '92, we are reminded why it doesn't work as well.
See what ends up happening is that a majority is needed to govern anyway. So the multiparty system is really just the two party system in drag. Seriously. A government only holds together as long as a coalition of parties holds together. That coalition needs to have a supermajority so that no one minor party can hold the entire majority coalition hostage on every issue.
In order to pass anything, you need a MAJORITY. No way around that. Whether you form your majority coalition out of one party or many, it comes down to majority rule in the end either way. Why not recognize this fact up front and divide along issues up and down? Keeps it simpler, which believe it or not, actually works better.
KISS: Keep It Simple and Straightforward.
Under the two party system, every time a party gets its @$$ kicked, it has to wake up and smell the voters. Either that party has shifted too far off center, or the center itself has shifted. The two party system smells out the center and revolves around it. That's the way it SHOULD work in a democracy. It's slow, weak, and corrupt, wasteful and disheartening, but look around you. SO IS THE REST OF THE WORLD. We have yet to find a system that actually works better. The more I see our system in action, and the way our nation continues to thrive under it despite its flaws, the more I come to appreciate it.
It's only human nature to play Monday Morning Quarterback. That in itself is part of American culture. We love to complain. Hey, I do, too. I can gripe as loud as the next guy. But really, when you get out into the real world and try to succeed at hard things, you gain appreciation for how tough it really is to lead even a small group of people. To lead a nation is tough business.
I'm proud of our system. I'm glad President Bush won reelection, BUT if he had not, our system would still have left us with Republicans in control of both houses of Congress. Mr. Kerry would have been limited in what he could do, anyway. These sore loser Dems who are talking about leaving the country because their candidate lost need to grow up. Or else, sure, leave. Can't be much of an American in the first place if they want to LEAVE the nation just because an election didn't swing the way they voted.
Only if the GOP had so badly botched leadership at all levels would the nation have swept in Kerry AND cleaned house in Congress. Remember Bill Clinton? He probably would not have won without Ross Perot dividing the conservative voters in '92. So what did our system do? FIXED IT in the midterm election. The 40-year reign of Dems in the Congress came to an end as the electorate cleaned house. Then, with the GOP in control of lawmaking and the Democrats in control of the executive powers, we enjoyed six strong years of Washington Gridlock while the internet bubble rose and fell. Worked out OK.
The Constitution has checks and balances preventing too much power accumulating in any one place, and when you really look at it, the voters have done a good job swinging the balance of power back and forth through the years. There are few things more humbling in this world than to lose an election.
When I read other people's cynicism about our system, I always find shallow, poorly thought-out reasons for the despair. Or, in one word, naivete.
God, the Universe, and Everything (TM) never promised us perfection. Pointing out flaws is easy to do because there are plenty of them, but finding solutions is much harder. One man by himself can find faults. It takes a strong team to create solutions, and at the level of nations, it's a miracle when it happens at all. Yet it DOES happen, here in the USA, on a semi-regular basis, when enough people get motivated about something that it affects their votes.
I'm proud of our system, our culture, our way of life. I'm particularly proud of Kerry and Bush, who have both had some of their brightest moments in the last 48 hours. I see plenty of reason to be hopeful.
- Sirian
Other nations do it, and prefer it that way. Canada, Israel... LOTS of them. I don't think it works better, though. I prefer our two party system. We allow for multiple parties in our system, but the voters never take "third" parties seriously. And even when do, every now and then, as with Ross Perot in '92, we are reminded why it doesn't work as well.
See what ends up happening is that a majority is needed to govern anyway. So the multiparty system is really just the two party system in drag. Seriously. A government only holds together as long as a coalition of parties holds together. That coalition needs to have a supermajority so that no one minor party can hold the entire majority coalition hostage on every issue.
In order to pass anything, you need a MAJORITY. No way around that. Whether you form your majority coalition out of one party or many, it comes down to majority rule in the end either way. Why not recognize this fact up front and divide along issues up and down? Keeps it simpler, which believe it or not, actually works better.
KISS: Keep It Simple and Straightforward.
Under the two party system, every time a party gets its @$$ kicked, it has to wake up and smell the voters. Either that party has shifted too far off center, or the center itself has shifted. The two party system smells out the center and revolves around it. That's the way it SHOULD work in a democracy. It's slow, weak, and corrupt, wasteful and disheartening, but look around you. SO IS THE REST OF THE WORLD. We have yet to find a system that actually works better. The more I see our system in action, and the way our nation continues to thrive under it despite its flaws, the more I come to appreciate it.
It's only human nature to play Monday Morning Quarterback. That in itself is part of American culture. We love to complain. Hey, I do, too. I can gripe as loud as the next guy. But really, when you get out into the real world and try to succeed at hard things, you gain appreciation for how tough it really is to lead even a small group of people. To lead a nation is tough business.
I'm proud of our system. I'm glad President Bush won reelection, BUT if he had not, our system would still have left us with Republicans in control of both houses of Congress. Mr. Kerry would have been limited in what he could do, anyway. These sore loser Dems who are talking about leaving the country because their candidate lost need to grow up. Or else, sure, leave. Can't be much of an American in the first place if they want to LEAVE the nation just because an election didn't swing the way they voted.
Only if the GOP had so badly botched leadership at all levels would the nation have swept in Kerry AND cleaned house in Congress. Remember Bill Clinton? He probably would not have won without Ross Perot dividing the conservative voters in '92. So what did our system do? FIXED IT in the midterm election. The 40-year reign of Dems in the Congress came to an end as the electorate cleaned house. Then, with the GOP in control of lawmaking and the Democrats in control of the executive powers, we enjoyed six strong years of Washington Gridlock while the internet bubble rose and fell. Worked out OK.
The Constitution has checks and balances preventing too much power accumulating in any one place, and when you really look at it, the voters have done a good job swinging the balance of power back and forth through the years. There are few things more humbling in this world than to lose an election.
When I read other people's cynicism about our system, I always find shallow, poorly thought-out reasons for the despair. Or, in one word, naivete.
God, the Universe, and Everything (TM) never promised us perfection. Pointing out flaws is easy to do because there are plenty of them, but finding solutions is much harder. One man by himself can find faults. It takes a strong team to create solutions, and at the level of nations, it's a miracle when it happens at all. Yet it DOES happen, here in the USA, on a semi-regular basis, when enough people get motivated about something that it affects their votes.
I'm proud of our system, our culture, our way of life. I'm particularly proud of Kerry and Bush, who have both had some of their brightest moments in the last 48 hours. I see plenty of reason to be hopeful.
- Sirian
-
Bold Deceiver
- DBB Captain
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Somewhere in SoCal
I've been away for a bit. But I think this is a bit of wisdom that, if I were a younger man, I would have profited well to grasp it. I grasp it now, from experience, and I'm glad someone with a bit of eloquence put it into words . . . . Nicely spoke, as usual.Sirian wrote:God, the Universe, and Everything (TM) never promised us perfection. Pointing out flaws is easy to do because there are plenty of them, but finding solutions is much harder. One man by himself can find faults. It takes a strong team to create solutions, and at the level of nations, it's a miracle when it happens at all. Yet it DOES happen, here in the USA, on a semi-regular basis, when enough people get motivated about something that it affects their votes.
BD
-
Iceman
- DBB Habitual Type Killer
- Posts: 4929
- Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2000 2:01 am
- Location: Huntsville, AL. USA
- Contact:
That is so true. It does happen here in America on a regular basis.
When it comes to dealing with our problems we basically have two kinds of people:
a) Those that point blame and whine about the stiuation.
b) Those that take it in stride, analyze the facts, form a plan, and get off their @$$ and do something about it.
Fortunately (b) forms about 1/2 of our population. I believe this is so because our system of government gives the common man hope ... hope that he/she can make a difference ... hope that our problems are solvable. Given hope, many people will roll up their sleeves, get off their @$$e$, and do something that truly makes a difference.
[/EndRant]
Anyhow , Well put Sirian
When it comes to dealing with our problems we basically have two kinds of people:
a) Those that point blame and whine about the stiuation.
b) Those that take it in stride, analyze the facts, form a plan, and get off their @$$ and do something about it.
Fortunately (b) forms about 1/2 of our population. I believe this is so because our system of government gives the common man hope ... hope that he/she can make a difference ... hope that our problems are solvable. Given hope, many people will roll up their sleeves, get off their @$$e$, and do something that truly makes a difference.
[/EndRant]
Anyhow , Well put Sirian
"Yet it DOES happen, here in the USA, on a semi-regular basis, when enough people get motivated about something that it affects their votes." Sirian
As exhibited in the largest voter turnout ever for the 2004 election. No matter your ideology, you have to admit the real winner is the american voter. Both parties will hear the clarion call and understand that the voter is now awake and the days of low voter turnout are in the past (hopefully). If a party wants power or wants to stay in power, they will first have to understand what the people want and then deliver on campaign promises.
Bush won because he understood that and the majority voted for him due to knowing where Bush stood on issues.
As exhibited in the largest voter turnout ever for the 2004 election. No matter your ideology, you have to admit the real winner is the american voter. Both parties will hear the clarion call and understand that the voter is now awake and the days of low voter turnout are in the past (hopefully). If a party wants power or wants to stay in power, they will first have to understand what the people want and then deliver on campaign promises.
Bush won because he understood that and the majority voted for him due to knowing where Bush stood on issues.