Slashdot Mirror
Democrats Take House, Senate Undecided
Every news publication on earth is saying mostly the same thing. The Democrats have taken the house picking up a sizable number of seats. But the Senate remains a tossup with a few undecided seats holding the balance. Concerns of voter fraud have been heard from around the nation as well.
Or just keep them from getting worse.
Yes, it's good for everyone, even the citizens that call themselves Republican.
Let me explain what was happening before. The Republicans owned all three branches of the government--House, Senate & Presidential seat. They didn't have 2/3 majority in both the House & Senate but it put the rest of the country in a really bad spot. You see, the three branches were put in place so that no one party/person could go nuts and foul up the country.
What has been happening as of late, is that bills are flying through all three branches and being approved. Some of these are good for Republicans, some aren't. Some of the things George W. Bush has been doing are aligned with his party and some weren't. The problem is that since "his party" was the majority, they were expected to pass whatever he proposed.
Compounding on these problems, it seems the Democrats were resigned that this would happen after their defeat in a lot of prior elections.
The fact is, I don't want anything to fly through the process of passing bills. I want there to be a large discussion before it becomes law. Recently, I've seen headings that say, "Bill passed that allows president to do X" and my response was, "When the hell was that even proposed? Oh, six days ago? That's aweful fast!"
The Democrats have a majority in one branch now, I don't care who gets the Senate. Let's just keep a nice balanced government. I'm not naive enough to think that this process actually works but I do know that as of late it's been really crappy--probably for both parties. I'd like to see the Republicans take the Senate, the Democrats have the House & let whatever nut jobs we want to be president.
So if you call yourself Republican, just remember that the other half of the country is Democrat--and it benefits you to keep them happy. A balanced government is more important for my health than balanced meals.
My work here is dung.
As a believer in liberty, limited government, and rule of law, I'm no fan of the Democrats. BUT I do recognize that with a divided government, less gets done. And the less that gets done, the better off all of us are. Fewer wars are started. Fewer liberties are infringed. Fewer taxes get raised. Fewer vile "regulations" get passed. Fewer obstacles are placed in the path of economic growth and prosperity. Hence, although I'd never have voted for any Democrat, I'm still glad they took at least the House.
Nonaggression works!
Haha, I was just thinking "Great, the Democrats won... now we won't have 3 months of recounts."
And Lieberman is officially badass now. He fought the two-party borg and won.
People voted for the Democrats because they want them to fix some things; especially the war in Iraq. There's no magic bullet for that one. No matter what anyone does, Iraq will be a mess. The consequences of cutting and running will be just as bad as those of staying the course. The world relies on oil from the middle east and it looks like there will be turmoil there for many years to come. In other words, we can't just abandon the situation. The only solution is to reduce our dependance on oil and that isn't going to happen over night.
The budget is also a disaster. Our foreign debt is huge. We aren't going to be able to afford the social security and medicare that we will need when we retire. The Democrats can raise taxes, which won't be popular and runs the risk of borking the economy, or they can abandon social security and medicare, which also won't be popular (at least with the grey hair set, which is where we're all going if we're lucky).
Two years from now, at the next election, the public is going to perceive that the Democrats haven't fixed the ills that beset us and consign them back to the wilderness.
So far, in the close Senate races (Tester Vs Burns in Montana and Webb Vs Allen in Virginia), the vote counts all favor the Democrats, leaving the incumbant Republicans in the position of legal challenger. In percentage terms, the advantage for the Democrats is much higher than in Florida 2000's presidential election, so the benefit of the doubt before the votes are checked will be very high for the Democrats taking the Senate.
I'm actually very glad that we have such close races in this election - this makes for one of the best possible cases for both parties to demand drastic changes in the standards needed for the voting process. Especially in the case of the 'electronic' voting machines and optical scanners using software like GEMS, and with extremely lax enforcement of standards across the board. Even without the expected cases of shennanigans, I hope we can expect some level of bi-partisan smackdown of these dangerously flawed voting systems.
Ryan Fenton
What? So now nerds aren't allowed to have a political interest?
Get over yourself, and let the rest of us enjoy the "News"-part of the slogan, kthnxby
Blog -
you never want one party controlling congress and the office of the president. the less that gets passed, the better!
Gone!
"What's the diff? Republicans and republicans lite."
I agree wholeheartedly.
"(e.g. bringng in medicare like every other developed nation)"
I.e. North Korea, Cuba, and the defunct Soviet Union? I guess there's Canada too (and what a crappy system it is, I can tell you as a Canadian).
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
Probably neither, since the Democratic gains were expected and therefore already built into the price of every stock.
THEY'RE ALL POLITICIANS!!!
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
Lieberman votes with Democrats on 90% of the issues, therefore he's a solid Democrat. The national Democratic leadership didn't like his stance on the war with Iraq. That one issue got the angry left riled up enough to vote for Lamont in the primary, but when push came to shove and the majority moderate Democrats saw what was happening, they voted in the "real" election for the guy that best represents them. He'll caucus with Democrats, which is as it should be.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Excuse me? Seems more like Democrats and Democrats-lite to me...
At least they all seem to want to spend my money like Democrats... And the whole 'compassionate conservative' crap is just Republicans outdoing the Democrats at being Democrats (except for the gay rights and abortion thing, which gets the public attention but is only a minor battle...).
Wrong. Any person on the senate who switches side every once and a while becomes "the powerful person in the senate". No senate vote is guaranteed (otherwise why vote?). Lieberman is a great example for this, even though he was a "democrat" how many times did he vote in line with the republican majority?
In my opinion its better for people to show their true colors. If he is gray, he should be gray not blue.
No, just kidding, of course she didn't say that. We all know there's only problems with voting machines when Republicans get elected.
(shamelessly stolen from qando.net)
But seriously, while I generally support Republicans, the current batch has been almost entirely useless over the past several years, so perhaps this will serve as a wake-up call.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
As an ex-Republican (Bush created a lot of us) who still leans conservative at least on economic issues, this is no surprise to me. What is interesting to me is that a party that includes some pretty intelligent people seems to primarily target idiots in their rhetoric.
;)
For example, most conservatives I know could care less about gay marriage. It is not a huge issue for me, I find myself being for it. I have no reason to oppose it so it just seems fair. Yet Rove and co. keep making this a cornerstone of their "get out the vote" campaign. The Christian fundamentalists do not have enough numbers that you need only focus on them to win, especially when it comes out that your own party might be covering up for a gay (the horror!) teen-predator who inexplicably held a co-chairmanship in the "missing and exploited children caucus". That probably did not play well in the bible belt.
Corruption anyone? Of course this is a cyclical thing and I fully expect the Republicans will probably regain Congress in a few election cycles after the Democrats turn out to be just a corrupt. And the cycle will go on and on because corruption is not a party issue, it is a requirement for office in DC.
Then you have Iraq, the elephant in the room that none of the Republican commentators wanted to touch (no pun intended). Again, you would have to be a totally uninformed moron to think that everything is going great and we need to "stay the course", yet that has been the message for years, flying in the face of reality (with its well known liberal bias
But the most ridiculous thing to me has to be the "listen to mommy and daddy you stupid little children" approach the Republicans have taken in warning us what would happen if the Democrats win. Probably plays well to those who only get their information from Rush/Hannity/etc., but for those of us who are not spoon fed our beliefs by paid mouthpieces it is insulting. "The terrorists are cheering the Democrats on", "The Democrats want us to lose", "If the Democrats win, we will lose the war on terror", "The future of civilization rests in the balance of the election"
Give me a break, both parties are pro-America and want the best for us, they just differ on how to get there. To suggest otherwise is fear-mongering of the worst kind.
Then you have the issue of how far Republicans have come from the "94 take over" years. Go back and re-read the "Contract With America", it is chock full of some really good stuff that I could really get behind. However, it is as far from the Republican party as you can get.
A good number of us are not religious/social conservative fanatics (or as I like to say, Shiite Christians), but that seems to be all the Republicans are targeting. Many of us ARE fiscally conservative and you will not find a more fiscally irresponsible government that the Republican controlled federal government of yesterday. Almost none of us are willing to join Bush's delusion regarding Iraq anymore. The WMD scam, the clueless management on the part of Rumsfeld, and the "la la la, I can't hear you" approach Bush takes to any news that is not positive has clearly taken its toll.
Personally, I hope the Democrats take the Senate for a clean Congressional sweep. I still disagree with many of their positions, but more important that that is my belief that checks and balances between the two branches of government is preferable to a mono-culture.
I am Finkployd, and I approve this message
That ain't gonna help you. It just means that you didn't get to vote.
You may welcome your new overlords again now.
The "blogosphere" didn't do that; the voters of Connecticut did.
Concerns of voter fraud have been heard from around the nation as well.
WTF was this little gem thrown into the summary? Not only does the article not mention fraud at all (if it did, I blinked...), but according to CNN, Number of civil rights voting complaints 'low'.
With a summary like that, seems like the editor is angling for a new job at Fox News...
Why are you against investigations? Do you suspect no crimes have been committed? Why?
Yes, investigations are politically nasty and interfere with getting other work done. Yes, many investigations are about political payback and have nothing to do with actual lawbreaking. But when a REAL crime has been committed, shouldn't there be an investigation? Or should the law not apply to politicians because they can always say "it's all just political"?
Frankly, I suspect crimes HAVE been committed. Therefore I want investigations, and if the evidence warrants it, impeachments and convictions. I honestly couldn't care less how it plays politically--crime should stop paying.
I thought slate had an article saying that democrats were better investors recently ? Too lazy to search, sorry.
I think you're referring to the claim that companies with "blue" managers outperformed others significantly. I don't have the Slate article, but this is the prospectus for the fund.
Now, here's why you shouldn't buy it (the argument, or the fund):
1) They've based this on FIVE YEARS of market history. In terms of the stock market's history, that's nothing. The last five years are not representative of the market's performance. For example, the S&P's historical return is over 10 percent, but in the last five years it was ~6.5%, about the same as bonds.
2) The fund promoter doesn't seem to understand what would count as a valid explanation for the perceived phenomenon (which, again, they got from only five years). The prospectus proposes that democrat-leaning CEO's "better understand employee needs" and crap like that, but that would't explain excess returns. To explain excess returns you would need to explain why that better management *is not already accounted for in the stock's price*. Even if that has historically happened, how do you know investors haven't "learned their lesson" by now and quit undervaluing that kind of manager? It's common for theories to backtest well and blow up when you try them.
If you really want to invest in "socially responsible" companies, go to vanguard.com and look up their "social index fund" (under stock funds). You get the benefits of low-cost indexing, plus you'll only be investing in companies that were pre-screened for social and environmental criteria. But don't expect to do consistently better than the rest of the market.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
"we'd be better off relying on strange women lying in ponds distributing swords as a basis for a system of government."
Makes no difference where the politicians tell their lies. It's all the same to me.
Where were you when the voynix came?
"(e.g. bringng in medicare like every other developed nation)"
I.e. North Korea, Cuba, and the defunct Soviet Union? I guess there's Canada too (and what a crappy system it is, I can tell you as a Canadian).
ie Japan,New Zealand,Australia,Luxembourg,Ireland,Denmark,Austr ia,Finland,Belgium,Netherlands,United Kingdom,Germany,Sweden,France,Italy,Spain,Greece.
Canada has a system where there is also very little private delivery of health care and is against the law to bill the end user for health care that the government provides. Most other countries allow private delivery in parallel to their universal themes.
To be up front, I will state that I am a conservative and vote along that ideology. Even so, I am pointing out the lies and hypocrisy of the "Repugnacan" Party.
:-)
:-( Will the Demoncrats live up to their promises of affordable, quality healthcare? Will they do something to steady the flow of American jobs to overseas slave labor countries? Will they repeal the "Patriot" Act? Will they restore the legal protections that Americans had under the Constitution? The most likely answer to all of these questions is likely not just no, but HELL NO!!! Remember the Democrats' promise when they ran against George Bush Senior? They railed against the republicans about their eagerness to send American jobs overseas (to repressive countries such as Red China). When in office, they did nothing to stem the flow of American jobs overseas. In fact most voted for the North American "Free Trade" Agreement. Healthcare costs also skyrocketed during the Clinton era. There were also the uncoinstitutional intrusions on peoples freedoms. Will there be any real changes in the way we are governed in the next few years? HELL NO!!! It will be business as usual.
The Republicans had control of both houses of congress, the presidency, and "right wing" majority in Supreme Court. In other words, they had a monopoly on power in the United States? Did they live up to their "party platform?" NO THEY DIDN'T!!! Rather than reduce the size and scop of government they have made the government size and scope the largest in U.S. history. As far as abortions and "gay marriage," the carnage continues at abortion mills, and NO LAW was passed to prevent "gay marriage." In fact, the Bush administration has appointed the largest number of openly gay people to office. The Republicans claim that they were tough on Muslim extremeists, yet they voted to outsource our nation's security to Arab companies while at the same time passing unconstitutional laws that intrude upon American freedoms. Christians and other moral majority type people fell for the Republican con plain and simple, and the Republicans did not keep their promises as a party. As a result, FED UP voters rightfully threw their sorry asses out of office
The problem I have with the election, however, is the fact that Demoncrats were elected in their place
I call the state of American politics the "swinging pendulum of sameness." When voters become fed up with the lies, deceit, and corruption of the Democrats, they fall for the lies, deceit, and corruption of the Republicans. It is the same game, but with a different name. The main difference between each political party is which group of voters they target with their empty campaign promises and lies, deceit, and corruption. Each election, voters are still stupid enough to actually swallow these lies. It is the stupidity of voters that allow these assholes to get away with all their crap. I am sure that this post will be modded down or catagorized as a troll. So be it. However, that still does not change the fact that the American voters as a whole are still stupid. Most believe that they have no choice but to vote the "Lessor of Two Evils." ost are also too lazy to do research on the candidates on the ballot even when sample ballots are available weeks in advance. If they would actually take about 15 minutes to do research, they would see that they never even heard of the majority of the candidates on the ballot. This is because the vooice of these candidates are squelched by the mainstream media. In fact, most media outlets will not even list them as being in the race.
I did my research this election, and I found several alternative party or independent candidates who had very good ideas. I also found quite a few who were plainly kooks. I told people about the candidates that I like as well as the other alternative ones. Most people's reactions were, "but they have no chance of winning. You are throwing away your vote." I say that they are throwing away th
Cuba has an excellent, well developed acute and preventative medical programme. Doctors from all over the world learn from their system. They also train many, many Drs from the 3rd world, cheaply, which allows them to go home and benefit their country. I saw a BBC2 (UK) show recently where they even interviewed some trainee medics from the US who were learning in Cuba as a)it was cheaper b)they liked the system. That's not to say the Cuba is a wonderland - Castros human rights record stinks - but it is simplistic to dismiss their socialised healthcare for this reason. Also, you might like to consider the quality of social healthcare availble in, for example, the Scandinavian countries. If I had to get cancer (Intelligent Designer forbid) I'd rather have it in Denmark than Delaware. Unless, of course, you think your medical choices should be solely a function of your personal income. NB As a Canadian, if you don't like your healthcare system, exercise your democratic rights and vote for a party that will improve things (in your eyes, anyway). Failing that, run for office yourself. And be damned grateful you can - unlike people in the 3 countries you mention can/could.
echo $SIGNATURE
I agree. The lesson of the election is the centrists. Strong on national defense, fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. The Democrats didn't take the election with a slate of far-left, DailyKos candidates on the coasts. They took it with middle-of-the-road candidates in the center of the country.
If the Democrats (as a national party) don't learn that lesson and move to center, they will lose power again. Just as the Republicans gained power in 1994 with (more-or-less) centrist candidates, and then lost it as they kept going too far to the right.
If I take anything away from this outcome, it is that most American's have a better sense of politics than I had previously given them credit for.
Umm... please, wait a few months after these folks get in office before you say stuff like this. In most likeliness this isn't the grand revolution you think it is. If the word "Democrat" or "Republican" puts either fear or hope in you by it's mere utterance you're fooling yourself just as much as the American voter.
There are tons of Rs and Ds that hard to tell apart even if you have a good understanding of the American political landscape. And frankly with the current problems a "change of the guard" isn't going to solve much. The current problems in the US are going to take a long long time to resolve and if you do it right (by not letting the pendulum swing too far to one side or the other) it's going to take much longer. Unfortunately Joe Sixpack has little interest in doing things right and his voting record normally shows this.
Even as bad as the world opinion is about the US and our Republican party I see a good chance that the Republicans are going to have a hold on politics for the foreseeable future including the presidential elections. Having a new Republican president or presence isn't really a bad thing but with a close cut legislation there is going to be tons of in-fighting and little progress will be made. Sure, we need to get at least some Patriot Act reform if not repeal, But if the Democrats take a large section of control we're going to have as many problems with their own little game they like to play with the Bill of Rights.
It's nearly a no win situation. We need voices outside of party lines and we need voters to look outside of their party for solutions.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Everytime you hear of Bush & Co. invading our personal liberties, remember that it was both the Democrats and the Republicans who passed the legislation allowing him to do so. The Republicans voted their conscience, however poorly formed it might be, while the Democrats simply betrayed both their principles and their constituents.
I disagree. Not about the Democrats betraying their principles and their constituents (they did), but that the Republicans did not. The Republicans did the same thing the Democrats did, they voted against their constituents out of fear, out of ignorance, and out of the desire to appear to be "doing something". The Republican party I know opposed Clinton and Gore's Clipper Chip initiative on the grounds that it violated personal privacy (Hell, ASHCROFT led that opposition, I still cannot get over that). They opposed the government's heavy handed reactions to Ruby Ridge and Waco. For them to now champion absolute executive power and total federal police/military control in the name of safety is widely diverged from the Republicans of the early 90s that won Congress.
Both parties betrayed us, I however respect the Democrats for at least recognizing it and attempting to fix it, the Republicans have settled on simply using fear to avoid changing their minds or admitting they made a mistake. Or they really believe the Patriot Act keeps us safe and will never be abused. Those ones are too stupid to hold office.
The primary difference between a Republican and a Democrat is that a Republican votes according to the principles which got him elected, where a Democrat doesn't care how he votes, as long as he can blame the Republicans should something go wrong.
You could easily replace the words "Republicans" and "Democrat" in what you just said with the words "Majority party" and "minority party". We've seen this before.
This really means nothing. The Republicans are still running both the House and the Senate; they can always count on their "Democrat friends" to vote Republican.
Not necessarily. Prior to this election, the Democrats needed to cozy up to Republicans if they wanted to get anything done. Compromise and trading favors was their only option. That is no longer the case.
Finkployd
"Don't fuck it up".
Seriously, they have a chance to at least put a brake on one of the most incompetent and reactionary administrations in US history (worse even than Nixon).
They better make good use of it.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Some very good points. I would disagree about the U.S. not being a sovereign nation in 20 years, though certainly I won't say that it's impossible.
The "You're throwing away your vote!" garbage gets me real steamed. You should always vote for the best person (not necessarily candidate, as some would take that as being someone who can win) according to your beliefs. If that happened, we wouldn't be in the messes we are in now. We have a "Extreme right wing" president who is afraid of or undesirous of standing up for conservative principles. We had a Republican Legislature trying to forward the concept of a Mommy-state while spending all of their time trying to figure out how to "bring home the bacon". Supposed "Conservatives" who supposedly cherish our System but refuse to ensure the enforcement of laws regarding immigration, pass bills restricting our privacy and freedoms, and appear to be just as beholden to various industries and organizations who obviously can't win them elections with financial support.
On the other hand, the Democrats will be no better. They are beholden to the same industries and organizations. They will have the same lobbyists courting them. Sure, they will try to rapid-fire impress some folks with a few quick moves. But even if they take the White House in 2008, we won't see much real change.
Except that when your parents pass away and leave you the house, you will magically owe the government money.
I agree that the only way to fix this, barring a leader who has the will and charisma and popular support of the people who can force change in the party, is to support alternative parties. Unfortunately, many promising people feel it is easier to take a party over from within, and push it to victory. This is sometimes the case, and certainly parties can be moved by strong personality to effect real changes. Ronald Reagan, for example, was able to shove the Republican party and create a short term change in their true tack. But often, once that personality leaves, the river starts to return to its original course. Here's a history tip for the young among you: Republicans weren't always enamored of tax cuts. Nor were they proponents of reducing the size of government. As you can see, some tax cutting attitudes remain. But the government reduction now seems to have been reduced itself to a talking point.
If Republican candidates hadn't drifted so far from the right, the Conservative base would have kept the party in full control. If people ignored the ridiculous campaign ads, educated themselves, and voted their conscience, we probably wouldn't have the Republican and Democrat parties in power, or at least the parties themselves would be vastly different.
Vidar
The brains of a chicken, coupled with the claws of two eagles, may well hatch the eggs of our destruction.
Irrespective of the winner, the good news is that the will of the people has been peacefully expressed.
The Loyal Opposition was not given a sufficient mandate to, say, impeach the Bush outright, but merely prune it a bit.
Somebody on the left has got to be miffed at the 20k+ Green party voters. If they'd thrown their lot in with Webb, the conversation would be much closer to finished.
OTOH, it would be nice to have more choice in my voting experience system.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Your taxes are going to go up because the Republicans have been cutting taxes and spending like drunken schoolboys for the last six years. Just because they didn't pay for it then doesn't make it the fault of the people who inherit their mess.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
They didn't tell you that "Green" stands for Get Republicans Elected Every November?
Once upon a time, war was the (almost) exclusive purview of uniformed armies fighting other uniformed armies.
Later on, as victory became less about the actions of groups of determined men carrying sharp and pointy things, and more about the ability to mobilize and deploy highly mechanized forces (the three best American generals of WW2: General Foods, General Motors, General Electric) it was almost as important to deny an enemy the use of his industrial production base as it was to defeat his armies in the field. This ushered in an era where targeting essentially civilian enterprises was militarily acceptable if it resulted in damage to military production. Merge this with the concept that the state had the right and ability to conscript every male between 16 and 55(ish) into military service, and you have 20th century Total War.
Total War is, indeed, brutal and ruthless, as you are effectively pitting the entire population, technical, agricultural, and industrial capabilities of states against each other.
But more recent actions are not about all-out state-vs-state contests. Instead, you are looking at state-vs-uninstitutionalized factions, where victory is not measured by reducing an opposing state's armies and industrial centres to ash, but rather, in converting an undecided third party (the "normal" citizens of the host state) into seeing things your way and conducting themselves accordingly.
This is "hearts and minds" stuff. You aren't in the game of killing everything in sight. Instead, you are in the game of reducing the freedom of your enemies to act and denying them support, while simultaneously trying to improve the quality of life of the citizens of the host nation.
It is in the conversion of the host people that the game is won or lost. If everybody wants the insurgents to win, then they will - you are an army of occupation and they will eventually bleed you dry. If everybody wants the insurgents to lose, then they will - insurgents rely on the support of locals to survive. And when you have an undecided populace, where some support you and some support the insurgents... well, then you have Iraq and Afghanistan today.
And experience has shown that heavy-handedness - "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out"; "those that run are VC, those that stand their ground are well-disciplined VC" - plays into the hands of the insurgents, as every injustice done to an innocent creates support for the insurgents.
A man who supports you and who wants to see the insurgents stopped will change his tune when a 1000lb bomb dropped on the "insurgent stronghold" across the street flattens his home and kills his family - even if there really WERE insurgents across the street that were legitimate targets.
Tactics that were entirely acceptable in the Total War days are now not only unacceptable in the Three Block War days, but are actually counterproductive.
The main goals in Iraq have to be the restoration of basic infrastructure, the training and fielding of an effective, corruption-free Iraqi police force, the cleanup and rebuilding of damaged and destroyed buildings, and the establishment of effective government. Until those are done, you cannot win.
Is there still a need for troops? Hell yes - all those infrastructure and reconstruction efforts will be actively opposed by insurgents, and there is a dire need for security and protection for those actors. But that's a different role than a massed armoured spearhead charging into the Fulda Gap.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Because once you get past what they advertise as their position and see what Libertarians really want (massive oligarchy in place of the government, with most stuff left up to mob rule). I totally agree with a lot of what they say they want, but it's hard to ignore the fact that you're getting in bed with a bunch of tax dodging fatcats who could care less about most of the stuff you want.
I read the internet for the articles.
I understand your sentiment, and partially agree. It just seems bad that it's either a system where a 25% vote wins, or a system where you have one of two choices, neither of which are good, but people feel like they must pick a "lesser of two evils". Ours is a system where there very well could be a "perfect leader" out there, a man of the people, who would never see the light of day because he doesn't play the games the Big Two do.
Maybe I'm just too cynical....it all reminds me of the Simpsons episode where they had to vote between the two aliens....it's funny and sad because it's true.
Speaking of, why does the Green Party get so much support as opposed to the Libertarians (which from what I can tell, seem much more "mainstream" in that if you asked someone their thoughts, would probably fall in line with them)?
Most people I know dislike Libertarians because they're seen as economically too right-wing. That is, the whole personal economic freedom thing is great, but people want social economic responsibility enforced as well, i.e. a social safety net of some sort, which the libertarians don't seem too fond of. The greens are more economically moderate, and as you'd expect from just statistical distribution, most people have moderate views of some sort or another.
Incidentally, I'd say that what we call "socially liberal" is actually quite socially moderate, hence it's popularity; only a few of the most radical anarchistic liberals say that "people should be able to do whatever the want to long as they aren't harming others, and there should be no system in place to catch those who do try to harm others and protect those in danger of coming to harm". Fewer still say simple "people should be able to do whatever they want, period, even if it hurts others". Most everybody favors the existence of some sort of police, and emergency services like firefighters, and nobody wants complete anomie; all of which would be more liberal positions than even libertarians hold.
Which doesn't make them better positions mind you, at least in my book - there has to be a proper balance between personal freedom and social responsibility and too little of either (or conversely, too much of the other) will give equally bad results. Too much "social responsibility" - when you start not only supporting the needs and general wellbeing of a society, but also giving in to it's arbitrary whims - leads to authoritarian tyranny of the majority, and is just as bad as the anarchy in the above extremes. (Consider it analogous to giving your child what it needs, which is a responsibility and thus somewhat a limit on your freedom, versus giving your child everything it demands, which would go beyond mere responsibility and make you a whipped parent). Apply this same line of reasoning (something the likes of which I suspect lies in the back of most people's minds) to economic issues and you'll see why more moderate economic stances are more popular than either of the extreme capitalist or extreme socialist positions.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Yes, you should, and we should have an electoral system where non-tactical voting doesn't have significant perverse practical consequences. But, until we do have such a system, you're going to have plenty of people pointing to the real consequences of naive voting. If you don't want to hear that, you ought to work toward fixing the electoral system so that what they are saying isn't true, rather than complaining that people point out the truth too much.
Because while most people believe in broad abstract outline what the libertarians claim to believe (low taxes, restrict government to essential functions), when the rubber meets the roads on real concrete policy choices, they tend to differ with libertarians and fall closer to some other party on which functions are essential, how taxes should be distributed, etc.
Sure, I agree. I want Congress to:
/ rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf)
-repeal the Patriot Act
-put a stop to govt. spying on Americans
-restore habeus corpus
-repeal the tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy
-close Guantanamo
-stop "extraordinary rendition"
-end torture
-get the US out of Iraq
-fund alternative energy and public transportation so we can stop funding terrorism through oil
-implement national health care
-disband and dismantle the Dept. of Homeland Security, which is the creepiest title since 'Ministry of Truth.'
-crack down on corporate aka white-collar crime
-stop outsourcing our jobs
-restore environmental protections
-shut NK and Iran's nuclear programs down
-stop invading other countries at the orders of AIPAC (http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf
-seriously fund medical research to cure cancer and heart disease, etc.
-catch Osama bin Laden, for pete's sake
-repair our alliances
-start addressing the very scary and very imminent threat of China
Basically, I want them to undo everything Bush has done, and then take the country in a positive direction domestically and abroad.
But I will be seriously pissed if I don't see investigations and impeachment, because the neo-cons, the war profiteers like Bechtel and Halliburton, and all their co-conspirators must be brought to justice. 'Cause like it or not folks, if they don't then our last means to get justice is with our guns.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Strong on national defense, fiscally conservative, and socially liberal.
Nope libertarians, at least when I last looked at them, were isolationists.
Neither of these assessments are correct. Libertarians seek maximum freedom, both economically and socially.
This means specifically NOT subsidizing the military-industrial complex (aka "national defense"), and it means genuinely free trade (not the WTO/IMF/OECD/World Bank regulated variety) in a global market.