[FFL]

If not US, then who?
If not NOW, then when?

we're all sick of the process, except for those who benefit from it the most - ie, the two-party duopoly, the corporate media, the special interests, and the professional politicians

more to come later... for now, join AppleNova chat for an ongoing discussion

[BuonRotto]

the political process doesn't explain this. we're a nation split down the middle in values, torn into pieces geographically. one half hates the other half. can't blame the founding fathers or the media for that alone.

[alcimedes]

Bah.

We're a bunch of idiots. It's like the damn Catholics and Protestants in Ireland.

Each thinks they're so different from eachother, and will defend those nuanced differences to the bitter end. Both look about the same to me.

[Luca]

I just think that with two elections in a row that have been unprecedentedly close, there must be something wrong with our system. What, is every damn election from now on going to come to litigation and a few hundred votes in a single state? This election is a once-in-a-lifetime close call, and it's happened TWICE in four years? YEESH!

Something. Is. Wrong. Seriously.

[alcimedes]

both candidates suck?

[Kickaha]

No. (Yes, but no.)

The voting system is borked, plain and simple. When you have high turnout everywhere, and record turnout in many areas, and it comes down this close? Bad system.

Bad system that ends up with extreme polarization of two parties.

Bad system that forces voters to vote 'strategically' instead of their opinion and conscience.

Bad system that weights certain states much more heavily than otherwise would be provided for by sheer population... swing states. Basically, if you're not in a swing state, you're not going to be considered worthy of campaigning at.

1) Ranked Voting.

2) Electoral Votes by Congressional District.

Those two would gut much of the power of the two parties, and give us voters real choice again.

[BuonRotto]

I still think blaming the system is missing the writing on the wall. Our problem is cultural. Look at the popular vote and what does it tell you? Look at the referendums and appointments made tonight. We simply have different outlooks, different ideals, different paths we want to take. I just think that we're reaching a point where even within states, we have these irreconcilable differences about who are are and want to be. I don't think any electoral wand waving or ranked voting is going to stitch those differences back to together in a way where anyone will be happy.

[Kickaha]

I disagree. The entire reason we have polarization is because we're only given two choices. Think about it for a minute... with two parties, emphasizing differences, and both trying to woo the middle ground... 50/50 is the inevitable result.

Remember - the polarization you see in the voting is due to the lack of choices, not the lack of variability in the spectrum of our society. Are there differences? Hell, yes. Are they as clear cut and absolute as the two parties like to play them off to be? Hell, no.

[Moogs]

Another election decided by a state whose elected officials are too fucking inept and short-sighted to figure out why it's a bad idea (after 2000) to leave thousands of punch-card voting systems in place, in a battleground state. Whoever those officials are, they failed their constituency the last four years, period.

Now the lawyers get to decide again. Yay.

This country is fucked up in some respects it makes me ill. Aside from the whole Ralph Reed "religion is more important than intelligence" crowd, you've got elected officials all over the map who can't even do something as relatively simple as updating their voting mechanisms.

We're not going to change anything if we can't change our own bad habits. But I'm sure Bush (who now that the lawyers are involved and Republican officials in Ohio are involved is likely to win in my estimation) will find a way to get us involved in another bullshit conflict to "keep us safe and spread democracy".

You want to spread democracy George? Write up some legislation that re-tools or eliminates the elecoral college. Ban punch-card and touch-screen voting machines. Make sure our schools aren't teaching "intelligent" design alongside their civics classes.

[drewprops]

I'm so damned proud of the fact that we can go through a mess like this and at the end of the day there's no military coup, no genocidal murder sprees, no striking french truck drivers clogging up our freeways... even all the soap operas stay on the air. God Bless America, even if our elevators don't hit all the stops. We'll fix even that, given time.

Just in time for something else to break.

Entropy: Love it or get sucked into the vortex of insurmountable dissociative force.

[alcimedes]

the only part of our current system that's truly broken is the Primary part.

The Primaries are where everything goes horribly wrong.

[Moogs]

That's a good observation. The primaries are fucked.

For example, why should piss-ant states like NH and Iowa (low population, homogeneous population relatively speaking, homogeneous industry-if any,) be so important in deciding who the candidates are going to be? The whole thing is backwards.

The states that best represent the nation are states that have a large population mix, a mix of industry and agriculture, a mix of party-line districts, etc etc.

Iowa doesn't represent anyone but farmers and New Hampshire... I'm not even sure who they represent in the context of the larger nation.

This country needs simple majority elections and primaries. Period.

[Argento]

Originally Posted by Moogs That's a good observation. The primaries are fucked. For example, why should piss-ant states like NH and Iowa (low population, homogeneous population relatively speaking, homogeneous industry-if any,) be so important in deciding who the candidates are going to be?

Simple, because geographically they're HUGE!.....

[Moogs]

Geographically? What do you mean?

First, neither state is very large in terms of land-mass (New Hampshire is tiny) and secondly the physical size or location of a state should have no bearing on the political process.

All that matters is the demographics of the population, the size of the population, and the local economy (farm state, business state, mix, etc).

[Kickaha]

Aaaaaand, the only reason we have primaries is because we have *two* parties that get to put forth *one* candidate each. Ranked voting eliminates that reason.

[FFL]

Originally Posted by alcimedes the only part of our current system that's truly broken is the Primary part. The Primaries are where everything goes horribly wrong.

Yes.
Tom Brokaw is on the Today show right now, stating his opinion that the country needs a special commission to reform the election process into something people can be comfortable with.

[thuh Freak]

i really really want to rape and pillage; i'm actually a little surprised there isn't any going on {outside the usual wednesday toss and floss}. it pisses me off that (a) it was close and (ii) w won. i don't want to move (laziness, and i like my island). but i don't like the government, and i'm scared of it now. back in the day, t.j. said something to the effect of "people shouldn't fear government; government should fear the people." we have to put the fear of a god into washington. and by 'god' i don't mean the dood up there {if ur so inclined to believe in him}, i mean "huge amorphous mobs of unhappy citizens with pitch forks and flaming pebbles". i think a little bit of revolution now and again would keep the government in check; maybe not even overhaul, just some bruises and new representatives. methinks it presently doesn't represent the people accurately; atleast, not as accurately as it would with a barrage of flaming pebbles flying at its face. i think all parties would make it their business to comply with the people's wishes, instead of special interests, if they had to fear for their life.

[709]

thuh Freak: I'm with you 1000%. Civil War II coming soon.

[johnq]

We were never supposed to become a two party nation (with infinitesimally small third party or so). And no I'm neither a Naderite nor a disgruntled Kerryite.

Had either won I'd still be for a robust, healthy multiple party system. (Hell, parties weren't even desired by Wash and Jeff).

We're fucked from now on, 50/50 forever, with random variations along the seam.

Nader's paltry appeal has wimpified the "third/multiple party" concept possibly forever.

It's just a Superbowl us vs. them game now and we toss a coin to decide.

[Kickaha]

Unless we change the basic underlying mechanism: plurality voting is what got us into this mess, let's ditch it for the better alternative.

It really is that easy.

Making the change will be hard. The wide-ranging effects will be vast from that one change however.

[thuh Freak]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Unless we change the basic underlying mechanism: plurality voting is what got us into this mess, let's ditch it for the better alternative.

fastest way to accomplish this: knife to the government's throat.

[kscherer]

If you are a REpublican or a Democrat, or a Republicrat, and you vote your party because you always vote your party, then you are not PART of the PROBLEM. You ARE the PROBLEM. If you voted for either Bush or Kerry then you have simply fueled a system that rely's on political ignorance. The system we have was never designed for two parties. It was designed for the best candidate to represent the American people and uphold their oath to the US Constitution. Oath and Constitution are two words that have no place in the Republican OR Democratic agendas.

Remember this:

You have been made to believe that politics are measured on a flat scale: Left or Right. I tell you that politics exist on a circular scale. Left, Right, Top and Bottom. At the top is freedom, the bottom is slavery. No matter which way you go from the top, left or right, you will eventually find yourself a slave. Think about it!

[Jay]

Originally Posted by alcimedes both candidates suck?

DING! DING! DING! We have a winner.

There are many things that can be improved but we need some better people running. I was not really strongly for or against one or the other but agreed with one on some issues and agreed with the other on the rest.

How about this the 1st rule to be president is that you can't be a politician.

[alcimedes]

thing is though, if you look at a country that has a lot of parties, you just end up with weird ass alliances and more political instability, as power shifts between smaller, more outlying groups.

instead of 300 mainstream assholes deciding your future, some crack pot coalition decides, that's made up of 5 to 6 groups. i'm not sure that's a whole lot better.

we need to get decent candidates in the primaries, is what we need. i have no idea how you do that though, since the only people who tend to pay attention to primaries are the people who are really into politics, and people who are really into politcs tend to be shit heads.

[BuonRotto]

Yes, there is a point where there are too many choices. This was a big problem in Germany after WWI and things didn't come out so well from that, but that's an extreme scenario. I think there were something like 17 "major" parties at the time. So there's something to be said for some form of our current republican (in the classical sense, not meaning the political party) rule as opposed to a raw democratic free-for-all. Not that anyone here is saying that, just pointing it out.

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by Kickaha No. (Yes, but no.) The voting system is borked, plain and simple. When you have high turnout everywhere, and record turnout in many areas, and it comes down this close? Bad system. Bad system that ends up with extreme polarization of two parties. Bad system that forces voters to vote 'strategically' instead of their opinion and conscience. Bad system that weights certain states much more heavily than otherwise would be provided for by sheer population... swing states. Basically, if you're not in a swing state, you're not going to be considered worthy of campaigning at. 1) Ranked Voting. 2) Electoral Votes by Congressional District. Those two would gut much of the power of the two parties, and give us voters real choice again.

So, Kickaha, are you saying that the simple combination of just these two things would essentially eliminate the influence of all the special interest lobbies?

Obviously we'd keep the electoral college; and, say, in a state with 10 electoral votes, if the state vote went 60-40, one candidate would get six votes, the other 4? And you think just *this* set-up would be enough to rid us of the evils of campaign finance problems and all the other stuff?

My brain seems to be in a fog right now. Not sure why. Is this plan something you came up with on your own, or did you read about it somewhere, and if so, where? Have you thought of all the pro's and con's, any unintended effects, etc.?

It seems so simple and straightforward. If only something simple and straightforward really could be the solution. *sigh*

I wish you could draw up a chart for those of us who are less perceptive and clairvoyant than you.... a chart that shows how your set-up would "eliminate or ameliorate the following ten problems....".

I just can't think straight. I know your suggestion seems perfectly clear *to you* -- in all its ramifications.... But then you've given all this a fair amount of previous thought. It's the ramifications and ripple-effect on our political system that I'd like to see spelled out a bit more clearly.

I.E. .... "because of ranked voting, we'd eliminate problems x, y, and z". Tell us specifically what problems you see being eliminated. Please?

I know you don't have time to be laying out charts.....

When you have a free moment then?


Here's the thing. I was talking in chat about the power the people have via referendum. Like in Colorado. I presume the proposition they voted for got on the ballot by referendum.

This referendum process - eg. "legislation by the PEOPLE" - could be mobilized from state to state, if a good, fairly simple plan could be devised for changing to ranked voting. Who knows? Maybe the Colorado plan *is* such a plan. I haven't looked into it yet.

But if people on all the zillions of American messageboards got behind such a movement, with ONE PLAN, and persuaded their friends to persuade their friends - to collect signatures to put the plan up for a vote on their individual state ballot for the 2006 election.... I think change could be made. Why not? Then ranked voting would be in place in those states in time for the 2008 presidential election.

We have this power at our fingertips, via referendum. Instead of sitting around complaining and thinking we are powerless to affect change, we could get together and come up with a plan. It could be a revolution for change instigated by people 'on' and 'via' the internet, but put into action in the real world.

Another point: in my state, over several election cycles, various groups have gotten together and put propositions on the ballot. In quite a few cases, these propositions have passed, because so many ordinary people wanted them. Politicians would *never* have campaigned for these propositions, because they would have been political death for them -- no matter 'what' their party.

The other thing is that in virtually every case, these propositions were not especially well-written. They were written without taking into consideration *all the ramifications*. In some cases, these propositions have had quite regrettable, unintended consequences, that were actually diametrically opposed to the original intent of the proposition drafters.

I mention this because I think some of the incredibly bright people on this board could come up with well-reasoned, clearly-considered, virtually flawless propositions for a referendum of our choice. A proposition statement whose *ramifications* and future ripple-effects would be considered and planned for ahead of time.

Anyone else have any feelings about what I have said?

[kscherer]

The truth of the matter is this:

You will NOT get elected to the Presidency unless all of the following criteria are met:

1) You must be wealthy
2) You must cater to the wealthy
3) You are either Republican or Demicrat
4) You are willing to accept campaign money from ANY source
5) You make a good puppet
6) You can sell refridgerators to eskimos
7) You have no real moral character, just pretend crap
8) You have some skeltons in the closet that can be used against you
9) You believe in "Globalization"
10) You hate God, even though you pretend to like him

[alcimedes]

yeah, the only thing more evil than the primaries are the political action commitees and various lobbies.

those bastards need to all die, i don't care how wonderful their cause is. that would hopefully get rid of some of the pork barreling.

[Windswept]

kscherer -

I think someone like John McCain could win if we had ranked voting.

He'd get support from Democrats, Independents, as well as a fairly large percentage of Republicans.

But he was too reasonable to get the Republican party nomination, because he is interested in campaign finance reform.

As our two-party system stands now, no potential candidate with even one (fairly significant) maverick opinion can get his party's nomination.

If I am understanding ranked voting correctly, a person *like* McCain could run as an Independent and garner tons of votes. Am I envisioning this correctly, Kickaha, my genius friend?

I believe McCain was asked to run as an Independent, but he felt he would be betraying too many people from the party he has been in all these years. I think once ranked voting took hold, politicians wouldn't be quite so hesitant to run as an Independent.

[BarracksSi]

Dig this --

For what will be two terms, Bush will have to live with the fact that half of the population doesn't want him in office.

Imagine walking down the street knowing that every other person that you see is thinking that you're doing a poor job.