[Slade]

I would much rather idiot politicians be voted into office because the popular vote relies on a public with a severe lack of intelligence than sit by and watch the idiot politicians get voted in by their friends instead. Overall, it would be the same outcome from very different circumstances, and we could focus on educating people rather than having to combat rampant cronyism. It's not like the majority of the population lack the intelligence to think for themselves; they're just apparently not pushed to. Things like the electoral college made sense back in the 17 and 1800s before the spread of mass communication and public education. Now the only excuse is people choosing to remain ignorant, and the media and politicians trying to misdirect everything to suit their bids for power.

Jordan: If the opposition gains more power by making the process more fair, then so be it. Sure, it sucks, but it's better than only having representation by repressing said opposition. Maybe a swell in conservative voters would get more moderate and progressive voters off of their asses and into the polls, especially if they felt less misrepresented by having more direct control over who they elect.

[Snake Logan]

“I cannot accept a system that holds the opinion of the village idiot to the same regard as the opinion of Aristotle.”

I do not remember where I read that.

This post has been edited by Snake Logan: 15 February 2008 - 06:19 PM

[Despondent]

Come on, everybody. It's Hillary's turn, you all know that. Stupid Obama, with his delegate lead, pop vote lead, et al blah blah. It's not fair (choke, cry), It's HER TURN!!

Incidentally, I found out that my jamming buddy in New Hampshire, his wife was Two people down from when Hillary cried the first time! She was on AP, the NYT cover, and more. And the Morning before she was offered a ticket to the event, She was for OBAMA.

[J m HofMarN]

Obama wons always holding me back!

[Dr Lecter]

Surely in a democracy, if the majority of people do not vote, and means they are infact voting for no government.... that would mean, in the USA that no government would be the outright winner, with support from over 50% of the population.

[Cobnat]

Since when has U.S politics ever made sense?

[Slade]

I'm sure if Australian elections had lower voter turn out, the government would just say "Ok, the people either want different candidates or anarchy. We'd best do one or the other, boys." right? But we can dream...

[?!!]

I don't know. I'm kind of glad elections aren't decided solely by popular vote. Today I heard someone ask if Hillary was the Democrat. To think if presidents were decided by people like that.

By the way, Obama's the black guy, right?

[Despondent]

You might say so. And McCain is the Republican candidate selected by the media.

[Spoon Poetic]

I don't get it, honestly. First everyone (including the media) hates McCain because he's "not a true republican," he's "too liberal," yada yada. But now he's the champion of the republican media? Everyone's excited and crap? Is it just because he's winning?

[Despondent]

He's winning because the liberal press set him up as the republican nominee. It's not fair that because of spotlights and polls and such, that by the time the primaries get to the later states, there are less choices because candidates drop out. Also, the GOP has that winner take all thing. Whereas clinton and obama get delegates for the % of votes in a state, Huck can come in at higher numbers than usual and get NO delegates if he's not number one.

It's like when I want to advance in my lane in traffic. I turn on my left blinker, and the guy in front of me gets in the left lane because of what he perceives I'm going to do. Of course, I know this and as soon as he makes his move, I advance in the right lane and pass him. I screwed him into thinking what he wanted to (which was not what my intentions were at all). I advance forward, get in front of him. He's pissed and stuck at the light while I sail on having worked a procedure.

[BigStupidDogFacedArse]

I'd argue that Senator McCain set himself up as a republican. Can you elaborate? He's not republican enough, right? He didn't drink the koolaid, he's not a frat boy. I guess he should call himself an independent since he doesn’t allow his policies to fit that generic mold we call republican or democrat.

Independents can’t win. There I said it. The political system alongside the mentality of the voter will not lend support to independents. The media offers an independent exposure if only to remind you that he/she stole votes from the other two parties. Independents are seen as electoral thieves. I don’t blame McCain for not jumping ship, can you?

I dare say, party selection has a dogmatic aura to it.

This post has been edited by BigStupidDogFacedArse: 22 February 2008 - 04:28 PM

[Despondent]

Independants can't win, and a moderate is a liberal. McCain is of the GOP in name, mostly. He crosses the aisle so much that when the music stops and senators scramble for a seat it's the aisle where you'll find him.

[Slade]

If the right-wingers think that moderate means liberal these days, we're in for quite awful times. If only people were allowed to have viewpoints that don't polarize them... Both parties and most voters are guilty of that. I also don't think that McCain is so old that he can't be a little better at musical chairs.

Also, nope, independents can't win. You've said nothing earth shattering, DogFacedArse, but it is most certainly true.

[Spoon Poetic]

Everyone knows that independents can't win. But I majorly disagree that a moderate is a liberal. I wouldn't lump a moderate in with a conservative, either; but it's not fair to have liberal contain from here <----------------to way over there------------------------> but conservatives only consists of <->.

But when the fact is that independents will never win the election, of course McCain wouldn't be dumb enough to run as one. And he does have more conservative beliefs than liberal ones. No democrat would vote for the man over the other running dems (though they'd be happier with him than most republicans) but plenty of republicans would vote for him (evidently, considering he's in the lead). So he picked the republican party.

I just don't understand why people/media outlets that started out hating the man for being so "liberal" are suddenly such staunch supporters of him. How do they get away with that?