ilovefuzz.com

im a bit tied up with stuff right now so i'll read your post in just a sec, but i caught the first sentence and i agree. Im not heated nor will i be and i appreciate that we can have a civil discussion about this.

Psyre wrote:Also, to comment on one part of your post Greyscales, I think creating a gridlock is exactly what we need. A period of panic with no centralized leader, only the congressional bodies. If anything could rattle Americas concrete governmental ideologies I think that would be it.

This seems completely contradictory to your general distaste for the political climate. Remember the debt ceiling debate? It took Obama a year and a half to pass the affordable health care act with a democratic house and senate. We're getting close.

The problem is that that only tends to turn people more against the "other" rather than reevaluate their own representation.

I do appreciate gridlock for all the opposite reasons you do. You, as with many people, seem to want some abrupt change or some sudden infusion of a new element. Democracy is designed to swing very little. Too much quick change within government rarely turns out well.

Psyre, many of your arguments seem to be blaming abstract institutions that have been formed over time by the influences of many different individuals. Maybe I've just read too much Camus but I see these kinds of issues as moot. Things are what they are. "The Media" is only an illusion. It's nothing more than people like you and me with their own, often simpler than you'd think, intentions, ideals and perspectives.

Psyre wrote:Also I completely agree that that voting for State government is extremely important, and I do believe more power should be given back to the individual states, that being said, I am sad to admit that I did not vote for anything in regards to Michigan, I did not find it fair to people in Michigan for me to vote because I did not think ahead of time to research properly and I do not plan on residing in Michigan again. Had I thought of this sooner maybe I would have switched my residence over to Arkansas, but even then I do not plan on being here longer than a year. I am pretty embarrassed to admit that, but I did not find it fair to participate in a state election I am not a part of.

i feel the same...i could have absentee-voted in California, but since i've left the state i didn't feel it was right to say what Californians should do regarding the ballot propositions, and i haven't been in Illinois long enough to even know which party the congressional candidates represent. amusingly, neither party's candidates have identified themselves by party except for the last coupe of days when NDCC ads have appeared.

Seeing Roseanne for my president on my ballot made me lol

i'm a union member, (new york state CSEA), and voted my ass off today!!!
*feels good*

snipelfritz wrote:

Psyre wrote:Also, to comment on one part of your post Greyscales, I think creating a gridlock is exactly what we need. A period of panic with no centralized leader, only the congressional bodies. If anything could rattle Americas concrete governmental ideologies I think that would be it.

This seems completely contradictory to your general distaste for the political climate. Remember the debt ceiling debate? It took Obama a year and a half to pass the affordable health care act with a democratic house and senate. We're getting close.

The problem is that that only tends to turn people more against the "other" rather than reevaluate their own representation.

I do appreciate gridlock for all the opposite reasons you do. You, as with many people, seem to want some abrupt change or some sudden infusion of a new element. Democracy is designed to swing very little. Too much quick change within government rarely turns out well.

Psyre, many of your arguments seem to be blaming abstract institutions that have been formed over time by the influences of many different individuals. Maybe I've just read too much Camus but I see these kinds of issues as moot. Things are what they are. "The Media" is only an illusion. It's nothing more than people like you and me with their own, often simpler than you'd think, intentions, ideals and perspectives.

I really do agree with you on all of this, including my poorly thought through and hasty response. I was pretty upset/worried about a couple of things and my second post was rather shat out. The media portion particularly because that is what I am involved in as far as my schooling/participation.

I voted even though I don't give a fuck.

Voted third party and am damn glad I did.

Unless Romney wins CA by 1 vote that is.

greyscales wrote:To bring this back to the third party idea, perhaps Americans should start trying to get third parties into Congressional seats. That's actually quite feasible. It takes a very small portion of the population to do so, and over time it can add up. Look at what the Tea Party did: they had an ideological agenda, got people to back it financially and electorally, and they got their (economically) more conservative candidates in office. They were only a lobbying group and had a huge effect on the 2010 election. That's the kind of thing voters can do easily.

Yes exactly. If you want to change the system you have to start at the bottom and work up, electing a 3rd party prez will not do much other then bringing that party to the forefront of public notice and not much more because both the other parties will hate and vote against pretty much everything they want to do.

also just a opinion but I really wish we GET RID OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!

just say'n...

We've talked a lot about X-party systems so far, but, in the information age, where we can all research candidates fairly in-depth individually, could we see the dissolution of all parties, allowing for some more interesting personal platforms?

I realize that party systems are not the source of all evil, and also that, even without party platforms, most candidates would continue to roost around a moderate centerpoint.

to make an effective transition to a multiple party system would require too big an overhaul of the system beyond "lets have another party in there", whihc is more than i want to get into


but, because of the nature of the voting process, a null action has no effect on the outcome. there ARE situations where chosing neither x or y does something, but in voting it does nothing to combat a system you dislike. and also in addition to the sheer scale of America, most protest actions in terms of changing how people vote takes a long-ass time to come into effect

schrodingersgoldfish wrote:We've talked a lot about X-party systems so far, but, in the information age, where we can all research candidates fairly in-depth individually, could we see the dissolution of all parties, allowing for some more interesting personal platforms?

I see this being very unlikely. Parties offer a lot to candidates: money, "brand name" recognition/association for uninformed voters (that won't change because people in general don't want to inform themselves), and connections. Who is going to put together rallies in different states? Who is going to get speakers at a rally? Who is going to provide a network of people, businesses, and resources? The party provides a structure that candidates rely on to run a successful campaign. There's a lot more to it than just a leaning on the political scale.

Until you can motivate every person to research issues and candidates on their own time, the party will be alive.
I could inform myself about any number of topics. But in the end, do I care enough to spend time researching all of these things when I can do something I actually like? No.

greyscales wrote:

schrodingersgoldfish wrote:We've talked a lot about X-party systems so far, but, in the information age, where we can all research candidates fairly in-depth individually, could we see the dissolution of all parties, allowing for some more interesting personal platforms?

I see this being very unlikely. Parties offer a lot to candidates: money, "brand name" recognition/association for uninformed voters (that won't change because people in general don't want to inform themselves), and connections. Who is going to put together rallies in different states? Who is going to get speakers at a rally? Who is going to provide a network of people, businesses, and resources? The party provides a structure that candidates rely on to run a successful campaign. There's a lot more to it than just a leaning on the political scale.

Until you can motivate every person to research issues and candidates on their own time, the party will be alive.
I could inform myself about any number of topics. But in the end, do I care enough to spend time researching all of these things when I can do something I actually like? No.

So you tell me why it wouldn't happen (greed and ignorance), but what are your theories on why it wouldn't work?

Voters won't inform themselves. Plain and simple.

because despite what extremists on the Left and Right believe, the two parties do represent different visions, ideologies, and approaches to governance which are useful for branding and differentiation. in fact, i'd argue that the two parties are more different now than they were in 1964, when there was an anti-Communist consensus and the Democrats still believed in capitalism.