DescentBB

glanced this from the OP on another thread and it made me ponder...

You United_States_of_Americans have a 2 party system, no voter preferences. A winner takes all system where you basically vote for one of the major 2 parties or your vote makes no difference to the result of that particular election.

So, have you ever had this sort of "neither party fixing crap" choice before? What happens?
It seems like it must have happened before coz i mean you only have 2 choices, that's not a lot of choice for 300+ million people!
Has this even happened before in the past? This is stupid, something cool happens right? Some "in case of bull★■◆●" secret constitional clause thing comes into effect and the nation is ruled by benevolent zombie Lincoln for a few years until you get your ★■◆● together? what

this election seems stupid to me
you are choosing between 2 people you hate. Statistically... chances are this was going to happen one day.
this is a really ★■◆●ing stupid way to design a democracy, and a voting system, but i digress
what happens now
don't you think this is stupid?
fix it guys
but how
what you gonna do
what DO you dooooooooooooo?!?!

At almost every election I vote for an independent, hoping that some day independent candidates gain some traction and we can break apart these parties that have long outlived their usefulness to the general population. It wasn't always this way but the two parties control far more of the election process than they should, and they are well funded in keeping that control (because both political parties have been reduced to little more than conduits for special interests to buy government power with their nearly bottomless pockets).

Krom wrote:every election I just piss away my vote with a stupid symbolic gesture so I can say that this stuff isn't my fault. ).

paraphrased for the sake of reality, Krom. Seriously, what do you think your actions, absent actually doing the considerable work required to change the status quo, accomplish? I mean, I can respect someone who fights for the independent candidacies, or works from within to change the policies of the major party, but have little time for folks who proclaim(with pride?) that " I vote for a third party whenever I can", or "I just don't vote at all". This isn't the level of involvement by the citizenry that was envisioned by Jefferson et al when this system was set up, and without such engagement the system goes to crap.

Eventually people of my generation will be a bigger chunk of the voters out there, then we will see how symbolic of a gesture it really is...

Krom wrote:Eventually people of my generation will be a bigger chunk of the voters out there, then we will see how symbolic of a gesture it really is...

but, if you do not put in the effort, starting immediately, towards the options I spelled out, the status quo remains and your generation will simply be co-opted into it, if, in fact, you haven't been squashed down to the level of serfdom in the next ten years or so......

callmeslick wrote:paraphrased for the sake of reality, Krom. Seriously, what do you think your actions, absent actually doing the considerable work required to change the status quo, accomplish? I mean, I can respect someone who fights for the independent candidacies, or works from within to change the policies of the major party, but have little time for folks who proclaim(with pride?) that " I vote for a third party whenever I can", or "I just don't vote at all". This isn't the level of involvement by the citizenry that was envisioned by Jefferson et al when this system was set up, and without such engagement the system goes to crap.

Do you apply as much scrutiny to people who vote R or D? They're doing even less to instigate change and are even more blameworthy.

My parents once tried to give me a hard time for voting third party because it's a wasted vote. I explained to them that by their logic, when they vote red in a blue state they are "wasting" their vote just as much (as would be voting blue in a blue state). If voting third party is only a symbolic gesture, then only people in a few counties in a few states even have the opportunity to cast a non-symbolic vote.

Jeff250 wrote: Do you apply as much scrutiny to people who vote R or D? They're doing even less to instigate change and are even more blameworthy.

actually, I am pretty much disgusted with 90% of the US Electorate, at this point. They are, to sum it up, lazy, uninformed(or willing to accept misinformation unquestioningly), selfish, shortsighted and lacking in the ability to reason sufficient to deserve a representative system of governance. Voting is merely the end point of a process that involves, or requires, participation along the way. I am not suggesting that everyone has to actively work in politics, but that everyone ought to be far more active in the exchange of information, formation of ideas that lead to policy and ought to try and view matters in terms of the society as a whole, not their own narrow self-interest. A silly pipe dream? Probably, but certainly, the writings extant indicate that to be the intent of those that founded the nation. For them, it was a no-brainer.....the population, almost uniformly, had a stake in the early decisions about the nature of the new nation. For the past century-plus, the average voter has lost touch with a level of civic knowledge possessed by dirt poor farmers in the late 19th century. And, as might be predicted, the bulk of the public has fallen futher and further from the concerns of those who ultimately make the decisions. People whine about how the system favors a very few. As I've tried to point out here, I agree, and in fact would argue that the 'very few' are essentially descendants of the same 'very few' of the 19th century. But, as I have also tried to point out, that class of the populace is the one that has focused on maintaining high levels of education and built contacts with the political powers from childhood on.

You know Slick, there is not one thing you just said that I disagree with. I am actively trying to get people more involved in my local community. That is where these representatives come from ultimately , but I do have one question. Why? Who made mindless drones out of them? You say a uneducated dirt farmer at one time had more national and civic pride than any of these youngsters possess. What did he have that they didn't?

EDIT: Better question and more to the point I guess, is, what do they have that he didn't?

I also generally vote independent, at least Presidential elections - I'm not voting for either of those fuckers. In other electoral races, I try to find out as much as I reasonably can about the candidates and their positions on the issues, and vote accordingly, whether Democrat, Republican or independent/other - generally tending to vote against incumbents.

Krom wrote:Eventually people of my generation will be a bigger chunk of the voters out there, then we will see how symbolic of a gesture it really is...

I'm technically a Boomer and I'd like a really strong viable independent candidate too. Someone who is willing to NOT sell their soul to either party or the plutocracy or the money interests and is willing to fight for normal people and their normal problems. I haven't seen one to fit that bill yet though, other than maybe Buddy Roemer. Ron Paul wasn't it and neither are tea partiers, who are just extreme corporate-spawned Republicans in all but name. I'm tired of money buying and influencing our elections and vying for my vote.

What's the saying; "Politicians only tell the truth when they accuse the other politicians of lying."?

This is why I have been saying forever…that the primaries are more important than the general.

flip wrote:You know Slick, there is not one thing you just said that I disagree with. I am actively trying to get people more involved in my local community. That is where these representatives come from ultimately , but I do have one question. Why? Who made mindless drones out of them? You say a uneducated dirt farmer at one time had more national and civic pride than any of these youngsters possess. What did he have that they didn't?

EDIT: Better question and more to the point I guess, is, what do they have that he didn't?

what they(modern citizens) have is a soft life, so far removed from the issues and challenges that necessitated a revolution and later a Civil War that they cannot fathom why this stuff is so important. They also had an educational system(even in rural one room schools) and family emphasis on basic literacy skills and actually learned something called Civics. Further, in the past 30 years, American society has become less about the society and more about the primacy of the individual. One can point fingers in 20 different directions as to why, but the result is a political debate centered on the primacy of individual freedoms without any regard to responsibility to the nation as a whole. Even business focuses on short-term gains for investors, over long-term profitabilty and viability of the corporation. It's depressing to ponder. The future path, if history is any guide, is headed straight to either an oligarchy(if we're lucky) or a repressive dictatorship(if we're not). Moreover, either option renders the US, as we've known it, to be an ever weaker player on the world stage. I envision a variation of current-day Mexico, with a handful of rich, old families and another handful of ruthless wealthy players among a sea of desperately poor countrymen. The sad part for most Americans is they have no one but themselves to blame, as the warnings have been made clear for decades. Yet, go out on the streets near where you live and ask people to name 4 Supreme Court Justices and both US Senators in your state. Then ask them to name Jennifer Aniston's last 4 boyfriends or the past 6 Super Bowl winners. The outcome might depress you even further......

ok so it seems that the options put forward so far are:
- vote independant, wait till others join you and maybe you'll all eventually reach a critical mass. But your vote won't effect any election in the meantime.
- go along with the 2 party system, try to change it from the inside. Basically supporting the 2 party system in the meantime.

is that the only options?
oh and i guess there's always the ever popular "hope-for / encourage an apocalpse, then rebuild something better from the ashes".


Also i'd like to point out that someone other than myself SECRETLY EDITED TEXT OUTOF MY OP. Thankfully it doesn't seem to have effected my desired direction of the thread though, so that's good. But it is alarming

roid wrote:oh and i guess there's always the ever popular "hope-for / encourage an apocalpse, then rebuild something better from the ashes".

As an extreme, the American tradition considers revolution a natural right, despite not being recognized by any government including our own.

callmeslick wrote:

what they(modern citizens) have is a soft life, so far removed from the issues and challenges that necessitated a revolution and later a Civil War that they cannot fathom why this stuff is so important. They also had an educational system(even in rural one room schools) and family emphasis on basic literacy skills and actually learned something called Civics.

Well way back then, you had to own land to vote. Women had no say in politics and blacks...well they were slaves.

callmeslick wrote: Even business focuses on short-term gains for investors, over long-term profitabilty and viability of the corporation.

You do realize that 80% of the working people are hired by small business's that don't have investors and value the employee's they have?

callmeslick wrote: The future path, if history is any guide, is headed straight to either an oligarchy(if we're lucky) or a repressive dictatorship(if we're not). Moreover, either option renders the US, as we've known it, to be an ever weaker player on the world stage. I envision a variation of current-day Mexico, with a handful of rich, old families and another handful of ruthless wealthy players among a sea of desperately poor countrymen. The sad part for most Americans is they have no one but themselves to blame, as the warnings have been made clear for decades. Yet, go out on the streets near where you live and ask people to name 4 Supreme Court Justices and both US Senators in your state. Then ask them to name Jennifer Aniston's last 4 boyfriends or the past 6 Super Bowl winners. The outcome might depress you even further......

While I agree with some of what you say, the vision I see are the controlling people in power not wanting to become Mexico. They want their kids and grand kids to grow up in a environment of stability and safety...not some gated community where you need a armed guard where ever you go. With a debt approach the point where we can no longer make the interest payment and no one willing to lend us more money, I suspect the reality of having to make horrendous budget decisions is looming. Once we de-elect the guy who has added more debt than all the prior presidents combined, we can hopefully get a more responsible govt.

woodchip wrote:You do realize that 80% of the working people are hired by small business's that don't have investors and value the employee's they have?

no, I don't. Care to provide data on that? Bear in mind that auxillary and support personnel still rely on the larger corporations.
EDIT: at present, less than 12% of all working people are working for small(<500 employee) businesses.70% work for large businesses and 18% work
for non-business entities or governments. You might be thinking about the idea that small businesses account for 80% of new hires, but these economists show clearly that such a claim is vastly errone0us:
http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/ ... s/?id=2087

While I agree with some of what you say, the vision I see are the controlling people in power not wanting to become Mexico. They want their kids and grand kids to grow up in a environment of stability and safety...not some gated community where you need a armed guard where ever you go. With a debt approach the point where we can no longer make the interest payment and no one willing to lend us more money, I suspect the reality of having to make horrendous budget decisions is looming. Once we de-elect the guy who has added more debt than all the prior presidents combined, we can hopefully get a more responsible govt.

dream on. Obama is hardly the problem, he is dealing with a situation handed to him, and the debt incurred was the price paid to get out of it. IMHO, too little debt was incurred to get out effectively. Current GOP plans would hasten my scenario, if anything.

roid wrote:ok so it seems that the options put forward so far are:
- vote independant, wait till others join you and maybe you'll all eventually reach a critical mass. But your vote won't effect any election in the meantime.
- go along with the 2 party system, try to change it from the inside. Basically supporting the 2 party system in the meantime.

actually, I've put forth the idea that neither choice applies without the individual being informed, educated enough to make the choice and involved in the entire process. It's complicated, my way, I realize.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

what they(modern citizens) have is a soft life, so far removed from the issues and challenges that necessitated a revolution and later a Civil War that they cannot fathom why this stuff is so important. They also had an educational system(even in rural one room schools) and family emphasis on basic literacy skills and actually learned something called Civics.

Well way back then, you had to own land to vote. Women had no say in politics and blacks...well they were slaves.

since I referred to the 'late 19th century', blacks could vote and the land-owning requirement was long gone.

Maybe blacks had the right to vote but the KKK saw to it they didn't.

in some areas, but certainly not in all. Not even if one restricts ones view to the South. Certainly not true in the North nor Western states.

callmeslick wrote:in some areas, but certainly not in all. Not even if one restricts ones view to the South. Certainly not true in the North nor Western states.

Care to rethink that?:

"During the 19th century, states outside of New England did not include black suffrage, even for free black men, in their constitutions."

"Although Republicans were able to secure black suffrage in Southern states under Reconstruction, many states in the West and North still denied the right to vote to African-Americans. The 15th Amendment of 1870 prohibited denying suffrage to anyone on the basis of color, race or because of being a former slave."

http://www.ehow.com/about_5435706_histo ... frage.html

So not until 1870 did the blacks get to vote in the north and the south

I clearly stated, and repeat, that I referred to the late 19th century. Thanks, Woody, for confirming my claim. 1870 would seem to fit that assertion perfectly. I love it when you clarify for me. Now, care to revisit your goofy claim that small business accounts for 80 percent of the workforce?

callmeslick wrote:

EDIT: at present, less than 12% of all working people are working for small(<500 employee) businesses.70% work for large businesses and 18% work
for non-business entities or governments. You might be thinking about the idea that small businesses account for 80% of new hires, but these economists show clearly that such a claim is vastly errone0us:
http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/ ... s/?id=2087

Not sure where you get your ideas but:

"At the end of the first quarter of 2005, there were 4.9 million firms
in the private sector of the U.S. economy. Firms with fewer than 500
employees accounted for 99.6 percent of all firms and 55.8 percent of
total employment. Of the firms included in the BED data, 54.4 percent
had 1-4 employees, representing 5.2 percent of total employment. In con-
trast, firms with 1,000 or more employees accounted for 0.2 percent of
firms and had 37.4 percent of total employment.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cewfs.nr0.htm

while this is for 2005, on average is probably same for other years

The differences you see between my numbers and yours would seem to be these:
1. Your numbers look only at private-sector employment--that takes almost 20% of the total away.
2. I noted at the outset, my figures view small subsidiary firms as wholly tied to the larger firm, hence, I would lump
a small parts supplier to GM in with larger business, as without GM the subsidiary doesn't exist. A lot of that stuff in the US
3. As noted in the link I gave earlier, a lot of small business 'job creation' is more than offsett by very high job elimination and
high turnover rates.

callmeslick wrote:

roid wrote:ok so it seems that the options put forward so far are:
- vote independant, wait till others join you and maybe you'll all eventually reach a critical mass. But your vote won't effect any election in the meantime.
- go along with the 2 party system, try to change it from the inside. Basically supporting the 2 party system in the meantime.

actually, I've put forth the idea that neither choice applies without the individual being informed, educated enough to make the choice and involved in the entire process. It's complicated, my way, I realize.

Ok. So the primary goal will be to raise education standards, particularly in civics? Sounds interesting (really).
How would you suggest this best be done. By repopulating local, state and national education boards with allies? Starting more grass-roots public awareness efforts about the importance of education? There seems to be a lot of grassroots types of education reforms already taking place, what with stuff like Khan Academy and other awesome internet things.

Sounds like a strategy worth reprioritising for, throwing some effort and materiel behind. Are we already doing this right now? Or are there roadblocks or what.
I mean... if this is really what you feel needs to be done, well then it's probably worth doing. So lets at least figure out a plan.

Hell you might even be able to make it singable to the big partys, "increase voter satisfaction".


GEORGE BUSH WANTS YOU
FREE AMERICA
YAYAYAAAAAAAARRRRR
[youtube]oC4edw3n3h4[/youtube]

Children should be taught 'how' to think, not what to think. That is the whole problem. Instead of preserving an atmosphere of innovation and problem solving, they turned the last generation into a bunch of learned monkey's, and then told them that's what they were.

flip wrote:Children should be taught 'how' to think, not what to think. That is the whole problem. Instead of preserving an atmosphere of innovation and problem solving, they turned the last generation into a bunch of learned monkey's, and then told them that's what they were.

I find little to disagree with in this.....

Roid, to answer your questions, I'd say the road will be difficult. The problems are societal, far more than governmental, and simply talking about the importance of an informed, educated and engaged populace won't be enough. There is big money to be made maintaining an ignorant, self-centered population of overconsumers, focused on fads and celebrities. Turning that around will likely take very, very harsh medicine. I had hoped that the last market bubble and crash might have kick-started the process a bit, but don't really see it. I suspect, in contrast to what Woody said, that we will become a nation of rich folks in gated community surrounded by peasants fighting for crumbs, before the whole thing gets rebuilt properly. I hope I am wrong.

I suspect if the peasants are forced to eat crumbs, a awful lot of very interesting pitch forks will come out.

woodchip wrote:I suspect if the peasants are forced to eat crumbs, a awful lot of very interesting pitch forks will come out.

likely true, but when all is said and done, to little good outcome.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:I suspect if the peasants are forced to eat crumbs, a awful lot of very interesting pitch forks will come out.

likely true, but when all is said and done, to little good outcome.

I suppose the French landed gentry thought the same thing prior to the French Revolution.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:I suspect if the peasants are forced to eat crumbs, a awful lot of very interesting pitch forks will come out.

likely true, but when all is said and done, to little good outcome.

I suppose the French landed gentry thought the same thing prior to the French Revolution.

uh-huh.....funny thing is, they still maintained the bulk of the power, to this day. Merely tossing aside a few figureheads for what evolved into a dictator changed the overall outcome very little, n'est pas?

And the same gentry are now paying the bulk of expenses to support the socialist working class

La Liberté guidant le peuple

Menage e trois?

A revolution would doom us now. I mean they got lasers man, lasers Lol, seriously, they will be looking to knock numbers down anyways and a powerful enough laser could cut a whole standing army in half before they ever saw it coming. No one will be able to make war against a dictatorship this go around, though I'm sure we will still try

woodchip wrote:And the same gentry are now paying the bulk of expenses to support the socialist working class

La Liberté guidant le peuple

because their gentry have the good sense not to let the whole society go to crap. They are still rich, though, and would have been more had some of them not been stupid about divvying up their estates, back in the day.