Political parties?(how we are seperating our country)

Big_T_UK said:
This tard guy must be a joke

Nobody could be that dumb

Come on who's doing it?
Click to expand...

I find now days english people quite homosexual like banning guns and bring towelheads mother europe holy lands, but that is evolution best brits died in colonies or they stay there and queer genetics in home island spread which leaded that weakness.
 
Seroiusly numbnuts... Learn to spell.

If you cant post somthing worth reading, then just stop posting.

Christ.. Talk about a damn good arguement for retroactive abortion.
 
Elissar said:
Seroiusly numbnuts... Learn to spell.

If you cant post somthing worth reading, then just stop posting.

Christ.. Talk about a damn good arguement for retroactive abortion.
Click to expand...

Commies have tried that many times but they allways got shot by my relatives in past heheh.
 
It would make sense for this to be true in all countries. After all, it isn't that difficult to vote, hell, in most countries you can get a postal vote.
Just a small fine of £10/$10 or whatever would make more people vote, as most people would prefer the small inconvenience of going to a poll booth to the cost of not voting.
I don't know what it is like in the states, but in the UK you can post a "spoilt" vote, where you have ticked more than one candidate of defaced the paper. This would work with people who didn't want any of the candidates as they could show they Officially didn't.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Forcing people to vote not only goes against the basic freedom of choice, it's just silly. Why would you want to spend more money to check whether everyone was there or not, when you can just let it go?
Personally, I want to be able to not give a fuck about what happens to my country(not that I'd do that). I just want to be given that choice....
 
The problem with letting people not vote is that the extremist parties end up getting voted in.
A case in point in the UK is the far right BNP (British National Party) who are getting voted in because of voter apathy in the more "normal" voters.
 
The problem with letting people not vote is that the extremist parties end up getting voted in.
A case in point in the UK is the far right BNP (British National Party) who are getting voted in because of voter apathy in the more "normal" voters.
Click to expand...
So? It's their choice to not vote, let them have that choice. Perhaps an extremist party would get voted in, but if you're a country adhering to the democratic principle, then you should give the people a chance to not care...
 
Why should we give the people that choice? Just for the democratic principle. How about: "we care for the future of this country and do not want to see a nutcase in charge so we make people vote and place our betts that the mayority will outnumber the extremist anyway." If a nutcase/extremist gets in charge he can fuck upp the democratic principle pretty fast anyway.
 
Forcing people to vote is no guarantee against extremists coming into power. Even if we assume that the majority of the population will take the time to actually educate themselves about the candidates, most candidates will attempt to portray themselves as moderate to be more appealing. When you have a two-party system that's pretty much split down the middle, it becomes important to get crossover votes from moderates in the opposing party. In the upcoming Presidential race, look for Kerry to attempt to define himself as a moderate Democrat while Bush attempts to define Kerry as Liberal. Since it's necessary to tie any political discussion back to the Nazis, even they were accused of having no real platform at all as they came into power.
 
Why should we give the people that choice? Just for the democratic principle. How about: "we care for the future of this country and do not want to see a nutcase in charge so we make people vote and place our betts that the mayority will outnumber the extremist anyway." If a nutcase/extremist gets in charge he can fuck upp the democratic principle pretty fast anyway.
Click to expand...
Because forcing people only costs more money and produces nothing new. THis is indicated in Belgium, where voting is obligatory, but an extrme-right(fascist) party still gets about 20% of the votes(IIRC).
 
Sander said:
THis is indicated in Belgium, where voting is obligatory, but an extrme-right(fascist) party still gets about 20% of the votes(IIRC).
Click to expand...

More, alas. 25,2 % of the votes. Thats more than a quarter all the votes. It scares the shit out of me... And out of a lot of other people in Belgium, too. That's why a lot of Belgians want to abolish the obligatory voting, actually.
Click to expand...
 
Aside from this debate about obligatory voting (which is a silly name for it, IMO) voting will not become widespread in the US until it becomes convenient and people have an incentive to do so.

And because it is a nightmare to both parties if everyone voted this will never happen. But anyway...

I believe that three things need to be introduced before voting is widespread. First is removal of the electoral college. This arcane piece of legislation was only applicable in a time before the information age. Unfortunately most people don't even know how the electoral college works, just that they got fucked up the ass in the last election because of it. A straight popular vote only makes sense.

Second is convenient voting systems. If people could vote over the internet from anywhere, know that it is secure and would be counted as legit I think it would save alot of trouble and get more people to vote.

Lastly, I think people need a day and unadulterated information. If the first Tuesday in November was a federal holiday and we were provided with objective information on where each candidate stands it would go a long way to making the voting process transparent and democratic, available to everyone, and fair.

But if course, pigs will begin flying before any of this happens. A great irony of politics is that the same people who you elect are the ones who control how you elect them.
 
I believe that three things need to be introduced before voting is widespread. First is removal of the electoral college. This arcane piece of legislation was only applicable in a time before the information age. Unfortunately most people don't even know how the electoral college works, just that they got fucked up the ass in the last election because of it. A straight popular vote only makes sense.
Click to expand...
This is true. Also just an entire resturcturing of the governmental system would be in order, since no party but democrats or republicans can actually do anything with this system.

Second is convenient voting systems. If people could vote over the internet from anywhere, know that it is secure and would be counted as legit I think it would save alot of trouble and get more people to vote.
Click to expand...
This isn't realistic. There is no such thing as perfect security and protection on the internet. Putting something as influential as USA elections would just be stupid.

Lastly, I think people need a day and unadulterated information. If the first Tuesday in November was a federal holiday and we were provided with objective information on where each candidate stands it would go a long way to making the voting process transparent and democratic, available to everyone, and fair.
Click to expand...
That could help, but maybe it won't. What's more probable is that whether or not this is actually done, debates and politics will remain little more than a load of personal attacks.
 
Sander, I realize the second point in particular is a pipe dream, but in a perfect world this would be possible. Because its not thats all the more reason why election day should be a federal holiday so that people are able to atttend the polls without worrying over work. Granted, you are allowed by law four hours (iirc) off work now to go to the polls, but it isn't used by many people. A full day would be more approriate.

And to your third point I agree to a point. Debates are (or should) be about character, allowing the people to see who the candidate is. It should be about issues, but that's not the key facet, IMO. An unbiased table of positions would be very helpful in clearing up the debate.

Back to your first point, I don't think a massive governmental reorganization is needed, just a change in the election laws. Currently they favor groups that can get a 15 percent I think group of voters together to be eligible on all state ballots and receive federal matching money. This number is ridiculously high, and all but guarantees a two party system. Simply lowering the threshold to 3 or 5 percent would allow the libertarians, greens and everyone else in, and go a long way to leveling the playing field.
 
There is the counter problem that voting is also an economic choice. You give up time to vote, and often have to take certain other costs- take time off of work, drive, pay for gas, take a bus. Small costs usually but that depends on who is doing the spending.

By not forcing people to vote you also create incentives to keep people from voting. By making voting difficult for some folks, you could lower their impact on an election. So for instance, if you want to keep minorities and poor folks from voting, you could make registration difficult for them- by setting up registration in difficult places, by not allowing them time off to vote, etc.
 
Excellent and very true points Welsh. But keep in mind that it is federal law that you must give employees time off to vote. I beleive the amount is four hours.

Anyway
 
Sander mentioned that people should be able to not care, I believe that purposely spoiling your vote (or there being an "I don't give a shit" box to tick) would cover this.

The only problem is that you are taking a small amount of time from those people, but all I can say to that is fuck 'em. People should care about their country, not for Patriotism, but for themselves and their kin.
 
its been my experience with politics that indeed the two extreme parties have no real differences
besides the fact that one is always the polar opposites of each other, wich on a person to person bases isn't really a problem, but those that dont want to be either left or right run into some problems with choices, and the fact that they have none.

this country needs stable leadership, neither left nor right but that will never happen as long as we as a population continue to live in pigish ingnorance.
 
Speaking of voting, there's a lot of voter apathy where I live, and I think this diagram will show why:
canadavote.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top