Only a very small portion of people can vote for Bernie Sanders and don't fucking kid yourself, he's a Democrat in every way that matters.
And yes, voting third party in the US, baring a handful of fringe cases, is throwing your vote away.
-.-
Well, just FYI, you're not even advocating for the democratic process then. You're only advocating for a, "Vote for whoever Shryke wants you to vote for, or it doesn't count," totalitarian joke.
No, I'm pointing out that "Voting third party, except in very special circumstances, is throwing your vote away and actively harming your cause by depriving the candidate most like you from the pool of those actually capable of winning of a much needed vote.".
You know, the actual facts.
The voting system exists as it exists. You wanna change it? Hey, you might need to elect someone to do that!
You know, in third-world countries, when they have elections with UN monitors, and a low turnout is declared, that's typically viewed as a sign of the illegitimacy of the election / political system / elected government.
Actually, if you poll people on specific issues, most people are well to the left of the Democratic party. The majority of people want to legalize pot, civil unions, and raise taxes on the rich. But the democrats want to cut the budget deficit >.<.
Voters also say they want that, but voters think there's a connection between the deficit and jobs.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Still. I don't blame the people who voted for Nader for electing Bush. I blame the people who voted for Bush, for electing Bush.
It's all cause and effect. I don't dwell on blame. More important to prevent that kind of shit from ever happening again, and to be able to honestly look at how we fucked up in the past.
You can vote for micky mouse if you want to, and more than a few people do.
Is it really a vote? No.
I mean, acedemically, sure, it's a vote. But there are no prizes for second place, and 3rd place is just wasting time.
A lot of people go out and vote for Nader's party. Nader isn't at all likely to win, of course, but consider the impact it has on politics when so many people say, "If you don't vote for [X], you've thrown your vote away!"
It's incredibly destructive, because maybe third-party candidates would[ have realistic chances if people actually voted for who they wanted to elect, rather than casting strategic balots every single time due to peer pressure and a flawed balot counting system. Insisting on a, "Totally Insane / Less Insane" bichromatic structure seems foolish to me, and undermines the overall intent of democratic practice, where the public consensus gets to choose a leader it wants to have, rather than one of two choices that will do less damage than the other.
Voting in the US is like a tug of war. Every time one party wins a major victory, it moves a bit further out from the center, and the other party moves a bit closer to the center. This is why when ever someone predicts that a party is "dead", they are wrong.
The two parties are always pretty well positioned on either side of the middle. Most people are closer to the middle.
This is why the "really insane" vs "kinda insane" thing comes up. Which ever side of the middle you are on, seems less insane, but really neither party represents the middle, which is the majority of the people.
Actually, if you poll people on specific issues, most people are well to the left of the Democratic party. The majority of people want to legalize pot, civil unions, and raise taxes on the rich. But the democrats want to cut the budget deficit >.<.
That's because you are polling "people" instead of "voters".
Actually, if you poll people on specific issues, most people are well to the left of the Democratic party. The majority of people want to legalize pot, civil unions, and raise taxes on the rich. But the democrats want to cut the budget deficit >.<.
Voters also say they want that, but voters think there's a connection between the deficit and jobs.
Well yeah, but as I recall reducing the deficit is like, 12th on most people's list of priorities.
Mostly these people should vote in primaries. And state representative elections. And what not. Hell, some of them could run for things. It's literally the only thing I admire about the Tea Party.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Actually, if you poll people on specific issues, most people are well to the left of the Democratic party. The majority of people want to legalize pot, civil unions, and raise taxes on the rich. But the democrats want to cut the budget deficit >.<.
Voters also say they want that, but voters think there's a connection between the deficit and jobs.
Well yeah, but as I recall reducing the deficit is like, 12th on most people's list of priorities.
It's usually been second lately, but like 60 points behind jobs.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
You know what was incredibly destructive? When people voted for fucking Nader in 2000. I'm all for all kinds of political reforms, this is one I'd fix, but until it is, you work within the fucking system so you don't doom hundreds of thousands of people to death and millions others to oppression. Oops.
And we say that with the benefit of hindsight. None of those going to the polling station:
a) Knew that the race in Florida was going to be as close as it was
b) Knew that Bush's election would lead to a war in Iraq
c) Knew that Gore would later become a strong voice for climate change legislation
A lot of those voting for Nader were disgusted with Clinton's foreign policy decisions in Africa & Kosovo, and why why shouldn't they have been? Many were disgusted with his domestic decisions, like repealing the Glass–Steagall Act, and why shouldn't they have been?
They didn't want a 'right wing lite' party, they wanted a left-wing party, and voted as such.
EDIT: You seem to be arguing that, basically, there should only be one option for voters - Democrat (given that third parties are a waste of a vote and the right wing is a bad choice). That doesn't strike me as being very, well, democratic.
Actually, if you poll people on specific issues, most people are well to the left of the Democratic party. The majority of people want to legalize pot, civil unions, and raise taxes on the rich. But the democrats want to cut the budget deficit >.<.
Erm, Ask Gary Johnson and Ron Paul how they feel about legalizing pot. It's a pretty bi-partisan issue.
In fact it's pretty much the only idea that's entered good ole Gary's mind in the last 15 years.
Actually, if you poll people on specific issues, most people are well to the left of the Democratic party. The majority of people want to legalize pot, civil unions, and raise taxes on the rich. But the democrats want to cut the budget deficit >.<.
Erm, Ask Gary Johnson and Ron Paul how they feel about legalizing pot. It's a pretty bi-partisan issue.
In fact it's pretty much the only idea that's entered good ole Gary's mind in the last 15 years.
Gary Johnson and Ron Paul are not representative of the Republican Party. Like, at all. They're waaaaaaay out there in their own little sector.
in fairness, the War on Drugs is pretty bi-partisan, when one restricts their framing of the issue to the Republican and Democratic caucus. Both parties overwhelmingly support it.
You know what was incredibly destructive? When people voted for fucking Nader in 2000. I'm all for all kinds of political reforms, this is one I'd fix, but until it is, you work within the fucking system so you don't doom hundreds of thousands of people to death and millions others to oppression. Oops.
And we say that with the benefit of hindsight. None of those going to the polling station:
a) Knew that the race in Florida was going to be as close as it was
b) Knew that Bush's election would lead to a war in Iraq
c) Knew that Gore would later become a strong voice for climate change legislation
A lot of those voting for Nader were disgusted with Clinton's foreign policy decisions in Africa & Kosovo, and why why shouldn't they have been? Many were disgusted with his domestic decisions, like repealing the Glass–Steagall Act, and why shouldn't they have been?
They didn't want a 'right wing lite' party, they wanted a left-wing party, and voted as such.
EDIT: You seem to be arguing that, basically, there should only be one option for voters - Democrat (given that third parties are a waste of a vote and the right wing is a bad choice). That doesn't strike me as being very, well, democratic.
No, he's pointing out that there IS only one option for the non-crazy voter.
Everything else is either insane or useless. It ain't pretty, but it's the facts.
If the US had two large, sane parties, then you could safely attempt to build a third party to challenge them both. We instead have "reasonably okay but much left to be desired" and "Let's kill Mexicans."
yeah this is pretty much entirely true and the reason why I don't vote.
it's just not for me.
Myopia is a large party of why this country is so much less than it could be.
If you want a decent third party option, you basically need to vote the crazies into oblivion, so that you can then risk supporting a group that is not crazy and also which you agree with.
If the Not-Crazy side encompasses 67% of voters, you can split the not-crazy side into "Mediocre Not-Crazy" and "Good Not-Crazy" and then even if "Good Not-Crazy" fails to win, you still at least get "Mediocre Not-Crazy" which is still better than "Crazy."
We will never get to that magic 67% without people voting.
yeah this is pretty much entirely true and the reason why I don't vote.
it's just not for me.
Myopia is a large party of why this country is so much less than it could be.
If you want a decent third party option, you basically need to vote the crazies into oblivion, so that you can then risk supporting a group that is not crazy and also which you agree with.
If the Not-Crazy side encompasses 67% of voters, you can split the not-crazy side into "Mediocre Not-Crazy" and "Good Not-Crazy" and then even if "Good Not-Crazy" fails to win, you still at least get "Mediocre Not-Crazy" which is still better than "Crazy."
We will never get to that magic 67% without people voting.
Yeah I guess voting symbolically for candidates that a vast majority of Americans have never heard of is a pretty good way to get that started.
Yeah I guess voting symbolically for candidates that a vast majority of Americans have never heard of is a pretty good way to get that started.
Sorry for my hubris!
Bweh?
No, vote for the people who can actually win so that the people who should never win can never win so they eventually just become a historical footnote, so later you get involved with a split where all the options are non-horrible. Then you can vote for all the symbolic stuff you want. Symbolism comes AFTER ensuring that we're not all fucked.
Yeah I guess voting symbolically for candidates that a vast majority of Americans have never heard of is a pretty good way to get that started.
Sorry for my hubris!
Bweh?
No, vote for the people who can actually win so that the people who should never win can never win so they eventually just become a historical footnote, so later you get involved with a split where all the options are non-horrible. Then you can vote for all the symbolic stuff you want. Symbolism comes AFTER ensuring that we're not all fucked.
Oh right. I misunderstood you.
yeah I have no problem with that. My mistake Fireguy.
That's because first past the post is fucking stupid and terrible
This. So much this.
We need Proportional Representation Ridings and Single Transferable Vote like yesterday - and that is here in Canada. US needs it even more so.
I don't think anyone here would disagree. STV is pretty obviously a good idea. But, just as obviously, it would take away power from the two main parties, so they're never going to allow it to happen.
Two axes, one showing support for OWS, the other support for their methods. Both seem relatively high.
On the horizontal: "Do you agree or disagree with the main goals of the Occupy Wall Street movement?" On the vertical: "Do you support or oppose the methods of the protestors?" So comments on the top right are those who strongly agree with the goals of the movement and strongly approve of protestors' methods. You can also color the dots and grid spots based on a range of disagree to agree for statements such as "Income inequality has contributed to the country's problems."
Politicians should start off making 30k a year. They should be forced to wear heather gray polo shirts with a plastic name tag on it and a pair of khakis. If they are ever late or show up without their uniform on they should have their pay cut or even be fired. They should be allowed no outside income and be forbidden from accepting gifts, lest they face long prison sentences. Before each debate, they should be forced to take college level exams on government in the middle of amphitheater, while an audience watches and a camera is placed over their shoulder. Afterwards, a moderator should go over their blue books with a red pen and ask them to explain their answers right there on the spot. Maybe one day, if they get re-elected enough, they could hope to make 60k a year.
Politicians should start off making 30k a year. They should be forced to wear heather gray polo shirts with a plastic name tag on it and a pair of khakis. If they are ever late or show up without their uniform on they should have their pay cut or even be fired. They should be allowed no outside income and be forbidden from accepting gifts, lest they face long prison sentences. Before each debate, they should be forced to take college level exams on government in the middle of amphitheater, while an audience watches and a camera is placed over their shoulder. Afterwards, a moderator should go over their blue books with a red pen and ask them to explain their answers right there on the spot. Maybe one day, if they get re-elected enough, they could hope to make 60k a year.
And they will do it for the sweet, highly overpaid job they'll get in industries they unfairly favored for said job.
Politicians should start off making 30k a year. They should be forced to wear heather gray polo shirts with a plastic name tag on it and a pair of khakis. If they are ever late or show up without their uniform on they should have their pay cut or even be fired. They should be allowed no outside income and be forbidden from accepting gifts, lest they face long prison sentences. Before each debate, they should be forced to take college level exams on government in the middle of amphitheater, while an audience watches and a camera is placed over their shoulder. Afterwards, a moderator should go over their blue books with a red pen and ask them to explain their answers right there on the spot. Maybe one day, if they get re-elected enough, they could hope to make 60k a year.
And they will do it for the sweet, highly overpaid job they'll get in industries they unfairly favored for said job.
Immediately after taking their highly overpaid job, a member of the opposing party who is desperate to gain footing with the voters uses his media backing and exposes the obvious trail of evidence. The former politican is brought up on corruption charges and his voting history is laid out in a court room. The company the former politician works for is blasted in the press and their profits decrease due to bad publicity.
You know what was incredibly destructive? When people voted for fucking Nader in 2000. I'm all for all kinds of political reforms, this is one I'd fix, but until it is, you work within the fucking system so you don't doom hundreds of thousands of people to death and millions others to oppression. Oops.
And we say that with the benefit of hindsight. None of those going to the polling station:
a) Knew that the race in Florida was going to be as close as it was
b) Knew that Bush's election would lead to a war in Iraq
c) Knew that Gore would later become a strong voice for climate change legislation
A lot of those voting for Nader were disgusted with Clinton's foreign policy decisions in Africa & Kosovo, and why why shouldn't they have been? Many were disgusted with his domestic decisions, like repealing the Glass–Steagall Act, and why shouldn't they have been?
They didn't want a 'right wing lite' party, they wanted a left-wing party, and voted as such.
EDIT: You seem to be arguing that, basically, there should only be one option for voters - Democrat (given that third parties are a waste of a vote and the right wing is a bad choice). That doesn't strike me as being very, well, democratic.
Hindsight?
Anyone with a brain in 2000 knew that voting for Nader meant they weren't really voting. There's a very strong chance that had they voted against the Republicans we wouldn't have had 8 years of Bush. No, that isn't their fault, but voting for Nader and pretending their vote meant anything is their fault.
The only way to change the voting system is to engage in the primary process on the congressional level and plead for election reform - it's a slim shot but barring some sort of revolution it's the only way.
Personally I can't fathom why we don't do a ranking system, let you put two or three votes down (eg: what is your first choice for president, congress, whatever? Second? third? each with their own box), and if your first choice doesnt win votes go to the next one. It wouldn't be perfect, but third parties would actually be listened to, because their endorsements would have the power to move elections. Single issue voters could vote for single issue candidates without fear!
The best part is the Democrats would suddenly see a huge voter turnout for very liberal candidates and realize we aren't all flag waving texans.
Personally I can't fathom why we don't do a ranking system, let you put two or three votes down (eg: what is your first choice for president, congress, whatever? Second? third? each with their own box), and if your first choice doesnt win votes go to the next one. It wouldn't be perfect, but third parties would actually be listened to, because their endorsements would have the power to move elections. Single issue voters could vote for single issue candidates without fear!
Range voting is better (arguably, so is lottery voting, but most people subjectively recoil at the notion of lottery voting), as even a ranked voting system will favor two systems in the end.
Range voting is where a voter ranks each candidate on a scale (say, from 1-10), as if they were judges for a sporting contest. The candidate with the highest aggregate score wins.
Two axes, one showing support for OWS, the other support for their methods. Both seem relatively high.
On the horizontal: "Do you agree or disagree with the main goals of the Occupy Wall Street movement?" On the vertical: "Do you support or oppose the methods of the protestors?" So comments on the top right are those who strongly agree with the goals of the movement and strongly approve of protestors' methods. You can also color the dots and grid spots based on a range of disagree to agree for statements such as "Income inequality has contributed to the country's problems."
While heartening as a snapshot, it'd be interesting to see how these plots have changed over time. I suspect the support/oppose methods would be pretty constant, but it'd be interesting to see if any change in support for their objectives has happened.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Are any of you seeing the rumblings on Twitter about what the NYPD is doing?
People who are being released from jail are finding that all footage / photos on their cell phones of the police actions have been erased.
Hooray for silencing the populace and fascism cementing in? That's kinda disgusting!
At this point, these people should just be sending them to their emails and social media accounts immediately. That will prevent this from happening. Besides, it's not like we don't have dozens of hours of police being shitheads from OWS.
Edit: Re: voting. You should always vote. Always pick the lesser of two evils. However, that is not enough. Get involved in your communities, OWS or not. Get the media to cover it. Use that action to put out a narrative that is absent from the political discourse. In the case of OWS, let it be known:
This is not about Republicans, Democrats, or creating a third party. This is about the fact that none of our politicians represent the majority of Americans anymore. Until people stop losing their homes, their jobs, and their voices due to the harmful economic and social policies, this will continue. It will continue to get bigger, louder, and harder to ignore.
NPR just called yesterday the biggest demonstration of the movement. Dwindling support? Hardly.
Apparently Buffy Poon [former Ebay executive] just thinks that while every child deserves a good education, hers deserve a very specific good education of her choosing, and that local taxpayers should make that available to her kids even as it's not available to other people's kids.
So great! The rich pay less taxes than the rest of us, but they still get all the money from the gubbernment that they hate so much.
Aren't you proud to be in the 58%????
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
Posts
No, I'm pointing out that "Voting third party, except in very special circumstances, is throwing your vote away and actively harming your cause by depriving the candidate most like you from the pool of those actually capable of winning of a much needed vote.".
You know, the actual facts.
The voting system exists as it exists. You wanna change it? Hey, you might need to elect someone to do that!
In the US it's actually both.
Voters also say they want that, but voters think there's a connection between the deficit and jobs.
That's because you are polling "people" instead of "voters".
It's usually been second lately, but like 60 points behind jobs.
And we say that with the benefit of hindsight. None of those going to the polling station:
a) Knew that the race in Florida was going to be as close as it was
b) Knew that Bush's election would lead to a war in Iraq
c) Knew that Gore would later become a strong voice for climate change legislation
A lot of those voting for Nader were disgusted with Clinton's foreign policy decisions in Africa & Kosovo, and why why shouldn't they have been? Many were disgusted with his domestic decisions, like repealing the Glass–Steagall Act, and why shouldn't they have been?
They didn't want a 'right wing lite' party, they wanted a left-wing party, and voted as such.
EDIT: You seem to be arguing that, basically, there should only be one option for voters - Democrat (given that third parties are a waste of a vote and the right wing is a bad choice). That doesn't strike me as being very, well, democratic.
In fact it's pretty much the only idea that's entered good ole Gary's mind in the last 15 years.
Two Republican politicians, one of whom is on the fringe of his party, makes it a 'bipartisan issue'?
Gary Johnson and Ron Paul are not representative of the Republican Party. Like, at all. They're waaaaaaay out there in their own little sector.
Which anniversary?
No, he's pointing out that there IS only one option for the non-crazy voter.
Everything else is either insane or useless. It ain't pretty, but it's the facts.
This. So much this.
We need Proportional Representation Ridings and Single Transferable Vote like yesterday - and that is here in Canada. US needs it even more so.
yeah this is pretty much entirely true and the reason why I don't vote.
it's just not for me.
Myopia is a large party of why this country is so much less than it could be.
If you want a decent third party option, you basically need to vote the crazies into oblivion, so that you can then risk supporting a group that is not crazy and also which you agree with.
If the Not-Crazy side encompasses 67% of voters, you can split the not-crazy side into "Mediocre Not-Crazy" and "Good Not-Crazy" and then even if "Good Not-Crazy" fails to win, you still at least get "Mediocre Not-Crazy" which is still better than "Crazy."
We will never get to that magic 67% without people voting.
Yeah I guess voting symbolically for candidates that a vast majority of Americans have never heard of is a pretty good way to get that started.
Sorry for my hubris!
Bweh?
No, vote for the people who can actually win so that the people who should never win can never win so they eventually just become a historical footnote, so later you get involved with a split where all the options are non-horrible. Then you can vote for all the symbolic stuff you want. Symbolism comes AFTER ensuring that we're not all fucked.
Oh right. I misunderstood you.
yeah I have no problem with that. My mistake Fireguy.
Two axes, one showing support for OWS, the other support for their methods. Both seem relatively high.
And they will do it for the sweet, highly overpaid job they'll get in industries they unfairly favored for said job.
Immediately after taking their highly overpaid job, a member of the opposing party who is desperate to gain footing with the voters uses his media backing and exposes the obvious trail of evidence. The former politican is brought up on corruption charges and his voting history is laid out in a court room. The company the former politician works for is blasted in the press and their profits decrease due to bad publicity.
Hindsight?
Anyone with a brain in 2000 knew that voting for Nader meant they weren't really voting. There's a very strong chance that had they voted against the Republicans we wouldn't have had 8 years of Bush. No, that isn't their fault, but voting for Nader and pretending their vote meant anything is their fault.
The only way to change the voting system is to engage in the primary process on the congressional level and plead for election reform - it's a slim shot but barring some sort of revolution it's the only way.
Personally I can't fathom why we don't do a ranking system, let you put two or three votes down (eg: what is your first choice for president, congress, whatever? Second? third? each with their own box), and if your first choice doesnt win votes go to the next one. It wouldn't be perfect, but third parties would actually be listened to, because their endorsements would have the power to move elections. Single issue voters could vote for single issue candidates without fear!
The best part is the Democrats would suddenly see a huge voter turnout for very liberal candidates and realize we aren't all flag waving texans.
Range voting is better (arguably, so is lottery voting, but most people subjectively recoil at the notion of lottery voting), as even a ranked voting system will favor two systems in the end.
Range voting is where a voter ranks each candidate on a scale (say, from 1-10), as if they were judges for a sporting contest. The candidate with the highest aggregate score wins.
This method reliably picks the Condorcet winner.
While heartening as a snapshot, it'd be interesting to see how these plots have changed over time. I suspect the support/oppose methods would be pretty constant, but it'd be interesting to see if any change in support for their objectives has happened.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
At this point, these people should just be sending them to their emails and social media accounts immediately. That will prevent this from happening. Besides, it's not like we don't have dozens of hours of police being shitheads from OWS.
Edit: Re: voting. You should always vote. Always pick the lesser of two evils. However, that is not enough. Get involved in your communities, OWS or not. Get the media to cover it. Use that action to put out a narrative that is absent from the political discourse. In the case of OWS, let it be known:
This is not about Republicans, Democrats, or creating a third party. This is about the fact that none of our politicians represent the majority of Americans anymore. Until people stop losing their homes, their jobs, and their voices due to the harmful economic and social policies, this will continue. It will continue to get bigger, louder, and harder to ignore.
NPR just called yesterday the biggest demonstration of the movement. Dwindling support? Hardly.
Please don't attack Macy's until after Black Friday's amazing sales, thanks.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/15/1036675/-Taxpayers-footing-bill-for-millionaireskids?via=blog_1
So great! The rich pay less taxes than the rest of us, but they still get all the money from the gubbernment that they hate so much.
Aren't you proud to be in the 58%????
Macy's to cancel Thanksgiving Parade. Thanksgiving ruined forever. More at 11.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/nov/18/occupy-london-takes-over-empty-ubs-bank-live
Also, interesting pictures from the Occupy protests.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2011/nov/18/occupy-movement#/?picture=382017237&index=0
I'm sure the woman in photo number two deserved it. Shoulda known better than shouting at the police.
Blog
Twitter
Is he biting that officer?
Also, further evidence that Brandon Watts may have been beaten:
This image is really funny, too:
Blog
Twitter