Can we trust our government?

[Prozerran]

I thought about where to post this. I don't think this is really an election
topic for "Election Central". I'd like to know if people agree with this author
that when they see Obama, do you see "a dead man walking?" Do you think the powers in our government that are threatened by Obama's attack on the politicians and the companies profiting from this war would do anything to keep Obama from becoming president? I'm suspicious, I'll be honest, but read this article and decide for yourself.

CAN WE TRUST OUR GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT OBAMA?

by Don Williams

A lifetime ago a friend asked, "What do you make of Barack Obama?"

My unrehearsed response: "When I see Obama, I see a dead man walking. Do
you honestly believe they'll ever let him be our president?"

"They who?"

My follow-up answer was clumsy. All I had was speculation. By "they" did I
mean the special interests Obama often derides? Elements in the
military-industrial complex who are used to dealing death, have billions
at stake and who, no doubt, prefer McCain's vision of staying in Iraq for
another century to Obama's get-out-quick approach? Or was I referring to
old-time racists, the sort who use the N-word and once made a hobby out of
burning crosses and lynching folks? Maybe I meant some deranged
fame-thief, one who kills in order to seize the spotlight from his victim, or a
paranoiac, whipped to fever pitch by fear-mongers on talk radio who paint
Obama as an unpatriotic Muslim?

Could be I've seen too many assassinations in my time-John F. Kennedy,
Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, John Lennon, Benazir
Bhutto---or read of too many plots by America's shadow government (Google
"Operation Northwoods"). Whatever's at work, I've always had doubts Obama
would be allowed to become our president. I've been shy about saying this
publicly, because I don't like putting unproven ideas out there,
especially
when they could be misread as arguments against Obama's candidacy. As
regular readers know, I'm in his corner.

Still, a sane person must acknowledge that any number of people might want
to kill Obama. Personally, it's our own government that worries me most. I
say this fresh from reading an article by Jack Douglas Jr. that ran Feb.
21
in the "Dallas Star-Telegram" under this headline: "Police Concerned About
Order to Stop Weapons Screening at Obama Rally." Here's an excerpt.

"DALLAS-Security details at Barack Obama's rally Wednesday stopped
screening
people for weapons at the front gates more than an hour before the
Democratic presidential candidate took the stage at Reunion Arena.

"The order to put down the metal detectors and stop checking purses and
laptop bags came as a surprise to several Dallas police officers who said
they believed it was a lapse in security.

"Dallas Deputy Police Chief T.W. Lawrence, head of the Police Department's
homeland security and special operations divisions, said the
order-apparently made by the U.S. Secret Service-was meant to speed up the
long lines outside and fill the arena's vacant seats before Obama came on.

"'Sure,' said Lawrence, when asked if he was concerned by the great
number of people who had gotten into the building without being checked. But, he
added, the turnout of more than 17,000 people seemed to be a 'friendly
crowd.'"

"Seemed to be a 'friendly crowd.'" Unbelievable. Few crowds appear
friendlier than the one in old films of Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22, 1963, at
the moment John F. Kennedy's motorcade made its memorable turn into
history.

It's impossible to say whether there's more to the Star-Telegram story
than meets the eye. Allen L. Roland brings a chilling perspective in his Weblog
at Salon.com.

"My one growing concern as the Obama movement continues to gain momentum
is that the Military / Industrial complex will do anything in their power to
remove threats to their power---and that certainly would include political
leaders who do not believe in Bush's illegal war, occupation and economic
rape of Iraq.

"The Secret Service apparently ordered the Dallas police to shut down
their weapons screening an hour before a major Obama rally.."

Lionize or despise them, but many in our Secret Service, the CIA, Special
Forces and other government entities are trained to cast a cold eye on
human life. In my opinion our president and vice-president have amply
demonstrated a perverse fascination and/or casual acceptance of those who deal death.
Whether it's blowing up frogs with firecrackers, as Bush reportedly did as
a boy, sending deranged criminals to their execution in Texas, as he did as
a governor, blowing away animals released from cages on hunting preserves,
as Dick Cheney likes to do, dealing death by remote control drones or by
ordering shock-and-awe on thousands in Iraq, as both men are complicit in.
At the same time they've revealed an aversion to accounting for such
killings.

Bearing in mind that cavalier attitude toward death, we all should make it
our business to demand that our government provide for the safety of all
candidates for president. The recent lapse in Dallas should be
investigated.

It's important to learn just who in the Secret Service made the decision
to call off the weapons screening. Or did that order come from higher up? If
so, just how high up? We now know the torture at Abu Ghraib was sanctioned
at the highest levels of government. Who ultimately controls the Secret
Service?

I urge you to write letters, email your government, and pass this
commentary around. As Obama gains momentum in his sweep toward a triumph that seems
ever more inevitable, we should all insist that our government keep him as
safe as they keep Bush and Cheney. Too many special interests, too many
bigots, too many sensation-seekers, fame-thieves and worse will be
motivated to commit murder if our government, consciously or not, gives them the
green light. If Obama should be assassinated, then watch the country explode.
Why would anyone in our government risk that?

The fact that a security lapse would've been permitted in Dallas, of all
places, is more than ominous. It's telling.

Please take a moment to consider this for what it's worth, no matter your position, I,
like Mr. Williams, find that a security lapse in Dallas is more than a simple mistake.

And there are those who don't give a second thought to the assassination of Kennedy by
a crazy lone gunman - they don't consider who in the hierarchy of the powers that exist
in the U.S. might even have more reason to have someone like Obama killed.

Not asking for paranoia, only awareness. Feel free to discuss.

[GenocideAlive]

Can we trust any organization with power? You always have some conspiracy theory going.

[3Vee]

I may realize later that I have to think about this in more detail, but here's my (mostly instinctive) response:

I think while Don Williams has a valid point about the extent to which special interest groups control the government of the United States, I'm not yet willing to admit that they would stoop to assassination - which is essentially what your article suggests - in order to ensure their continued power. The Dallas thing may well have been a mistake, although you're right that it looks a little odd. I just - maybe I'm delusional - do not see enough evidence to suggest that we've become a fascistic military-industrial state "behind the scenes", as it were.

Secondarily, I believe Williams has an exaggerated idea of the injustice - and theoretical benefits - of the Iraq war. While I'm no fan of that action, I see no way in which it's benefitted the US at all. Gas prices have hiked, which means, if the objective really was oil as is often claimed, the scheme backfired. If the Iraq war was an economic scheme, it didn't work. If it really was a liberation attempt, the jury - pardon the joke - is still out.

Finally, such a scheme would backfire completely, I believe. Although I may be overly optimistic, I believe the US has reached a point in race relations where such a death would cause a wave of sympathy for the "cause" Obama stood for, and while the effects might not be immediate, it would show eventually, faster than would be safe for this "military-industrial complex" to take direct power, and that would destroy the power base of the complex, at least temporarily.

[GenocideAlive]

Claiming that the bid for oil failed because gas prices up seems like sounds logic, but do remember that correlation is not causation. There is very good evidence to suggest that the reason that oil prices are going up is because the supply of oil is going down. Not because of war in Iraq.

[3Vee]

Ah, yes, I realize that. But I would argue that diminishing supply of oil is (largely) caused by the whole Middle East fiasco, either by disruption to Iraqi production, or by other producers or even refiners stockpiling out of worry about further disruption of the supply. The Katrina refinery damage should be dealt with by now, I think, and I haven't heard about oil resources drying up recently or in the immediate future, so I can't really think of another reason that makes sense. Maybe I'm ill-informed.

Or maybe the resources really are drying up faster than anybody knew, and heightened prices are from producers trying to eke out every last bit of profit and time before the big crash, and nobody knows about it outside the business and we are victims of an industrial complex.

[Andvari]

The fact that the tanks and vehicles in the middle east themselves take oil, so do the aircraft being taken to the Middle-East. That and the fact that "Asia" is possibly driving more vehicles and buying more oil from us. That is what we have been told in school apparently.

But this is taking the topic off-track, the topic originated with a conspiracy theory and I think that, while it seems incredulous, you never know how corrupted the government is actually these days, greed is a powerful weapon IMO.

[GenocideAlive]

You should probably read up on Peak Oil and its cause / effects. We're basically on the cusp of an energy crisis, assuming nothing changes in the next 20 years. Half the world will be without power if we don't get our shit together and figure out how we're going to continue production. There will be at least a moderate shift in powerbase, because China has the largest landmass, then Russia, then the US. That landmass can be used to grow alternate fuel sources. Though, Russia and China have harsh winters, which could be good (pests destroyed) or bad (annihilate seedlings) for the crop.

[Andvari]

Yea, if you were aiming that at me, i wasn't arguing at the point of energy, but also another downside to mention is that Russia and China have the harsh winters and that cold usually need energy to maintain heat unless another more effective source is found.

We already had a top on the most prominent source of energy to be next used so we won't get into that here.But yes, i totally agree with you on that. Nonetheless, the fact that oil and fossil fuels are running out is still a major problem the world needs to get their act together and fix.

[singo]

Point relative to the peak oil thing. Slightly.

Now, Oil is going to run out at some point and even now prices are going up. As such, it is suddenly profitable to use huge swathes of land for purposes of growing those all-important replacement biofuels is a damn good idea economically. Production of such "Alternative Fuels" is expected to rise by 30 percent by 2030.


Of course there is a downside, there always is. In this case the fact that it is now oh so much more profitable to grow fuel crops rather than foodstuffs means that wheat is now costing £180 a ton, bread prices in supermarkets are rising faster than at any time during the last 14 years, and world stocks of wheat are at their lowest levels for 50 years.

Bugger.

[Anoiktos]

Can we trust our government?

Consider:

- A group of people whose purpose is to lead
- The benefits they gain by doing so are:
- Financial gain
- Political power
- Notoriety
- They can milk the last two for additional of the first, and use the first to get re-elected.

Thus:

So long as elections are highly affected by the financial resources of the politicians campaigning, politicians will sell their political power and notoriety for financial gain.

Now, who *buys* this political power and notoriety, and for what purpose?

- Individuals (including corporations) seeking advertisement or regulation/deregulation
- Uh, that's it.

So: We have a system by which your attention, through money spent campaigning, can be transferred into votes, by which a politician is elected, by which the power therein gained can be sold to:
- produce more money with which to buy your attention, and
- serve the interests (directly, through policy, or indirectly, through advertisement) of individuals who have money.

In either case, the money comes from YOU, in either
- taxes, or
- your donations/purchases of services from individuals (once again, including corporations)

Essentially: We have a system that, through its process of election and the specifics of the powers therein granted and lack of regulation as to how they are used and manipulated, creates a feedback loop of corruption wherein:
- Your money is taken in order to
- Take more of your money

The press, the media, exists to combat this, to provide a counter to the money spent trying to purchase votes. Unfortunately, the media has also been purchased by individuals (or corporations), which play this game as well.

Now, this isn't to say that non-corrupt officials cannot exist: they must, however, combat the overwhelming odds placed against them by a system that rewards corruption.

So no, I don't think it's reasonable to say you can trust your government.

[GenocideAlive]

Of course, that begs the question: who is there to trust? Nobody, get yours I'll get mine.

[Prozerran]

I may realize later that I have to think about this in more detail, but here's my (mostly instinctive) response:

I think you need to think on this in more detail. Please see my responses below:

I think while Don Williams has a valid point about the extent to which special interest groups control the government of the United States, I'm not yet willing to admit that they would stoop to assassination - which is essentially what your article suggests - in order to ensure their continued power. The Dallas thing may well have been a mistake, although you're right that it looks a little odd. I just - maybe I'm delusional - do not see enough evidence to suggest that we've become a fascistic military-industrial state "behind the scenes", as it were.

The thing that makes Dallas so ominous is that JFK was assassinated in Dealey Plaza in Dallas, TX. Actually, Williams doesn't necessarily point directly to special interests only but actually lists any number of possible types of individuals, from political extremists to racists. It is actually I that am honing in on the idea that special interests are at work, because while it is not necessarily telling of the situation recently, it is QUITE telling when you look at the fact that the Dallas police were told that additional security would be provided by the secret service and that they could stand down during the President's visit.

Now, is this concrete evidence that some special interest group ordered JFK's assassination? Of course not... and for those who don't like to come to conclusions before you see concrete evidence, then this won't really mean much to you. The circumstantial evidence is OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of this particular theory of a special interest group being responsible. But some people just have this unrealistic expectation that if such a coupe existed or still exists in some form, there would be "concrete" evidence of such a plot. And unfortunately for these people, there will never be enough evidence to convince them of anything... which is why when I read the following...

Can we trust any organization with power? You always have some conspiracy theory going.

... all I can say is that I like to keep myself informed on what's going on. I don't look for conspiracy theories, I simply know that when something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's not a flamingo.

Secondarily, I believe Williams has an exaggerated idea of the injustice - and theoretical benefits - of the Iraq war. While I'm no fan of that action, I see no way in which it's benefitted the US at all. Gas prices have hiked, which means, if the objective really was oil as is often claimed, the scheme backfired. If the Iraq war was an economic scheme, it didn't work. If it really was a liberation attempt, the jury - pardon the joke - is still out.

The interests I think Williams is referring to don't give two shits about the U.S., Iraq, or any other nation for that matter. These people have a mentality that they are masters of their own universe. They have all that they need, an agenda built on their own self-serving interests, and have in their ideology a directed path for the futures of everyone. Now, if a group such as this exists today, then who do you really think these people are loyal to? No one, as far as I'm concerned. We're talking about the private shareholders with extremely large stakes in companies like Halliburton, Exxon/Mobile, and Blackwater.

Look at the people in the executive office alone who have financial stake in these companies (Cheney - Halliburton, Bush - Exxon/Mobile, or Rumsfeld - Blackwater) and you see, once again, a not so incredible line of thinking that someone's making a shitload of money by prolonging the conflict in the middle east to continue profiting from GOVERNMENT FUNDED PRIVATE COMPANIES that comes directly out of your tax dollars and the Fed, which controls the value of the dollar. This means that all the money that you and I and everyone else who pays taxes goes into the pockets of the shareholders of these companies. What's more? If there aren't enough tax dollars to cover the amount of funds needed to fund operations in Iraq, that money comes out of the Fed. Every dollar that comes out of the Fed actually LOWERS the value of YOUR DOLLAR.

Now, I don't know about you, but who gives a fuck about getting re-elected when you're going to be rich enough to buy your own third-world country? In all reality, this is more than on a national level. In the past few days, the Air Force just awarded a $40 Billion dollar contract to the British company that manufactures the airbus air-refueling tanker. Boeing was supposed to receive the contract, they were almost certain they would, but because the Air Force was free to award the contract to anyone, they prevented Boeing from creating over 75,000 new jobs for U.S. workers. Whoever has major stakes in this company is making a shitload of money off of a U.S. government contract. So, regardless of whether or not a special interest exists, the simple truth of the matter is the leaders in office and in the military can do whatever the hell they want to do, regardless of the affect it has on the U.S. economy.

Finally, such a scheme would backfire completely, I believe. Although I may be overly optimistic, I believe the US has reached a point in race relations where such a death would cause a wave of sympathy for the "cause" Obama stood for, and while the effects might not be immediate, it would show eventually, faster than would be safe for this "military-industrial complex" to take direct power, and that would destroy the power base of the complex, at least temporarily.

I really have no idea what point you're trying to make here... see above and consider the context I believe Williams refers to...

[3Vee]

First: If this thread is really just, "Can you trust (any) government?" then the obvious answer is, "No." Even if you believe representative democratic government would ensure justice - and it ought to be the most transparent of any governmental form - modern electoral process & process of selecting candidates is too dense for anything but a concerted - and expensive - effort to penetrate. On the other hand, I believe that even this process results in a government which has to at least approximate what the people thinks it wants, as at least in the West there's quite a long legacy of armed rebellion against tyranny when things get too bad. So trust? No. But tolerate as approximating the lesser of possible evils, sure.

The thing that makes Dallas so ominous is that JFK was assassinated in Dealey Plaza in Dallas, TX.... It is actually I that am honing in on the idea that special interests are at work, because while it is not necessarily telling of the situation recently, it is QUITE telling when you look at the fact that the Dallas police were told that additional security would be provided by the secret service and that they could stand down during the President's visit.

I'm going to be honest: I'm going to ignore the JFK connection. If there had actually been an assassination attempt on Obama, that would look like someone was trying to make a point. It would, in fact, look really shady. But nothing happened, which makes it look more like an honest mistake.

With the one minor caveat that Obama is a Democratic candidate with mass appeal and an anti-militaristic policy, so if you want to jump at shadows, then yeah, this is a fairly shadowy shadow.

The circumstantial evidence is OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of this particular theory of a special interest group being responsible. But some people just have this unrealistic expectation that if such a coupe existed or still exists in some form, there would be "concrete" evidence of such a plot.

All I was saying is that the circumstantial evidence doesn't add up to anything. If you pay any attention to politics at all it's fairly bloody obvious that "special interest groups" pretty much run the government, certainly of the US, probably of other places too. Since paranoia is easy to play up, military/industrial groups are going to have the money to do a lot of the bankrolling to keep lawmakers sedated. So sure, you have a point.

But on the other hand, when you look at the governmental budget, the US spends so much on so many things trying to keep ALL the special interest groups happy that I don't buy the emphasis/worry about the military SIGs. What I'm basically saying is sure, be afraid, but you're not going far enough and I think it all pretty much cancels out.

It's not going to stay this way, of course. Next time we're forced into a big war, the military is going to come out on top of the political thing unless we fix it first. You have ideas? So maybe your "military-industrial complex" is trying to force another war just to get rich. I guess it's sort of plausible.

Now, I don't say the following to give offense, so please don't take this wrong. But what you're saying is approximately what Europeans said for about a thousand years about the Jews, because they were the ones with heavy investments in those areas. I'm not arguing that this actually justified the genocidal suspicion of the Jews, so I also want to be just as careful not to just dump blame on "dirty capitalistic military-industrial capitalistic leaders".

The interests I think Williams is referring to don't give two shits about the U.S., Iraq, or any other nation for that matter... We're talking about the private shareholders with extremely large stakes in companies like Halliburton, Exxon/Mobile, and Blackwater.

So why am I worrying about the government? I'm going to start suspecting everyone who lives in San Fransisco, or New York, or next door...

Look at the people in the executive office alone who have financial stake in these companies (Cheney - Halliburton, Bush - Exxon/Mobile, or Rumsfeld - Blackwater) and you see, once again, a not so incredible line of thinking that someone's making a shitload of money by prolonging the conflict in the middle east.... Whoever has major stakes in this company is making a shitload of money off of a U.S. government contract. So, regardless of whether or not a special interest exists, the simple truth of the matter is the leaders in office and in the military can do whatever the hell they want to do, regardless of the affect it has on the U.S. economy.

Right. So, Obama gets elected, realizes he can make money prolonging the war and investing smartly, and quickly changes his policy ideals. Unless you think Obama actually is a man of principle - which I admit is possible, but the whole thread is based on suspicion, so why not suspect everybody?

I really have no idea what point you're trying to make here... see above and consider the context I believe Williams refers to...

My point was that even assuming I'm wrong and these SIGs or whoever would stoop to assassination, killing Obama would be a bad idea.

[GroG]

I don't trust our government, for other reasons than what's listed above.

Personally, I think their approach to the housing bubble is all wrong. Apparently Ben Burnanke is talking about removing entire lump sums off principles for people who got ARM and Option-ARM mortgages. So basically rewarding those who took out loans they shouldn't have qualified for, while making the company eat the losses. Completely unfair to not only the companies (sure, they should be punished, but millions/billions of dollars? Why not just let them foreclose and declare bankruptcy then), but the rest of us who played it safe with the damn mortgages.

Also, I think the offshoring thing has gone way too far, and the government should have stepped in way earlier and passed legislation to keep our jobs here. But apparently big business and lobbyists provide way too many kickbacks and/or campaign support for congressmen to act on it.

Finally, for your topic, my wife continuously tells me that the Clintons are suspected of murdering people involved with the whole Whitewater scandal. We also know Nixon was doing some nasty things in with Watergate scandal. We also know that Ford pardoned Nixon from any criminal proceedings so.. yes, I'd say we have enough evidence to say that the government is corrupt.

[Oblongato]

If government is corrupt, this is due to the fact that the voters, in their ignorance and apathy, do not care enough to examine the trustworthiness of candidates before casting a vote. The result is that we adapt to a certain level of corruption in government and tend to vote on the basis of ideology or in support of our favorite industrial interest groups.

If people really were serious about eliminating corruption, they would vote only for candidates who could be confirmed as being trustworthy, if necessary voting for independent candidates.

I do not agree that political power necessarily corrupts. Instead, honest and trustworthy candidates do not have a chance to rise above a certain level because they do not use the tricks and deceptions that capture a large number of votes from ignorant and apathetic voters, who represent a large majority.

The simplest and most universally used tactic, for instance, is to avoid saying anything that is not extremely general about any issue. As soon as a politician says anything specific that has even the slightest controversial aspect, opponents will exploit it as a wedge issue. When a candidate says half a dozen specific things, enough wedges are already present to split off so many voters that winning is no longer possible.

Of course, this is only possible when voters play along. Honest or not, politics is still the business of compromise. Ignorant, apathetic voters simply would prefer to vote for someone with whom they have no serious disagreement (not realizing this is because the candidate has said nothing specific) than for a candidate with whom they know they disagree on one or more points. As long as voters behave this way, non-transparent politics, and thus corruption, are virtually guaranteed.

[mranderson]

Finally, if you elect to do amateur inspections of furniture (Government) because you're fairly confident you've watched enough (Think you know every dark secret of politicsTV to be a wood / furniture expert (Government expert), great. But I can admit when I don't know what the hell I'm looking at, and my wife wouldn't be all unicorn giggles and rainbow shits when our furniture broke 20 days after getting it (The government collapses) because whomever was selling it knew how to hide problems better than I knew how to find them.

Sorry to quote you without permission Genicide. Say the people that are trying to get you to elect them for them "not being corrupt." What are the chances of them not being corrupt when put into the system? So what happens with the candidates that do hide their corrupt side without you knowing? What are the chances of an honest person running for election that would not become corrupt?


If government is corrupt, this is due to the fact that the voters, in their ignorance and apathy, do not care enough to examine the trustworthiness of candidates before casting a vote.

That is interesting... very interesting. I think what makes a government corrupt is its rulers, and administrators. Not its base group. Are you saying every elected official is corrupt though, and that every voter doesn't care about the issues or candidates enough to study them?

You are avoiding the issue of those in power, and those without. The level of power you have should be proportionate to your level of accountability, not the other way around. It is kind of like arguing that power corrupts.

Sure absolute power corrupts abosolutely (but its absolutely awesome). It still doesn't change the fact that that one person became corrupt. They're just blaming circumstance, and shifting the source of blame.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout
Different countries have very different average voter turnouts. For example, in the United States, approximately 70% of the eligible population registers to vote, which may be an important contributing factor in the low average election turnout, which in recent decades just barely has topped 50% of voting age population in presidential elections. However, in 2004, election turnout was up to 64% of the voting age US citizens.[1] In Australia, which has compulsory voting, and Malta, participation reaches 95%

Anyone know if they take that percent of registered voters or total population? Still scary either way. According to the http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html there are 303,582,635
citizens of the United States. I'm not going to use exact figures here, but if oinly seventy percent register to vote, that leaves out 90 million people who don't seem to care to vote at all.

[Oblongato]

That is interesting... very interesting. I think what makes a government corrupt is its rulers, and administrators. Not its base group. Are you saying every elected official is corrupt though, and that every voter doesn't care about the issues or candidates enough to study them?

Except the people getting elected do not just get corrupt while they are in office, they get elected, and re-elected, long after it becomes clear what games they are playing. I think it is more likely to find elected officials who are honest at a lower level than at a higher one because at the local level the connection to the electorate is more direct. I won't say that voters don't care, but voters have most certainly accepted a certain level of dishonesty and/or corruption. If they hadn't, they'd throw the bums out, and they haven't.

You are avoiding the issue of those in power, and those without. The level of power you have should be proportionate to your level of accountability, not the other way around. It is kind of like arguing that power corrupts.

How am I avoiding that issue? Ultimately, voters have the power to change things, they simply don't - for a number of reasons, primary among them ignorance and apathy. Power in the U.S., where there is a free press and term limits, is less likely to corrupt than elsewhere. If voters insisted on transparency in government by only voting in politicians who made their dealings transparent, the situation would not be what it is today. Ultimately, I place the blame squarely on the shoulders of voters, since only they have the power to change the situation.

[Prozerran]

How am I avoiding that issue? Ultimately, voters have the power to change things, they simply don't - for a number of reasons, primary among them ignorance and apathy. Power in the U.S., where there is a free press and term limits, is less likely to corrupt than elsewhere. If voters insisted on transparency in government by only voting in politicians who made their dealings transparent, the situation would not be what it is today. Ultimately, I place the blame squarely on the shoulders of voters, since only they have the power to change the situation.

This depends solely on the fact that a candidate exists that would act to make such change. The problem is that no candidate makes these changes. So, fuck blaming the voters. They aren't the one's who are changing much of anything, because it's the goddamn super-delegates whose votes count in the general primaries to even give us a candidate that will make it possible for power to return to the people.

It doesn't matter how much we all insist on transparency in government if no candidate who runs on this platform (cough* cough* Paul) has delegate support. Don't blame the fucking voters - there are tens of millions among the public that support Paul who have pledged contribution after contribution. People already know that their vote, whatever it is, won't fucking matter. Read a political science textbook and you can read IN BLACK AND WHITE that the affect of a single vote will be less than a billionth of a percentage of the outcome of an election. It is statistically impossible for a single person's vote to ever radically sway the outcome of an election.

And who do these people get to vote for except the same tired politicians who make a career out of manipulating the public to vote for them. It's purely a popularity contest with no substance. The best part, though, is the fact that the public vote is only designed to sway the delegate vote, not mandate that vote. Tom Daschle can vote for Obama even if his state votes for Clinton, and no one can do anything about it until it comes time for Daschle to be re-elected. By then, who cares?

[Oblongato]

There are voters who care; there are voters who vote for candidates who are straight shooters. Just not enough of them. Most voters vote for the candidates whose entire campaigns are based on manipulating the ignorant. It's their fault that such people get elected, but anyone who cares who doesn't try to convince the ignorant of the error of their ways is also responsible. Only those who have done everything they can have the right to complain, as I see it.

Again, the power ultimately lies with the voters, who can remove anyone they like from office and put anyone they like in office. People get the leaders they deserve. If most voters are idiots, then the outcome is obvious. It's unfortunate, but these are the consequences of a populace that is, on average, poorly educated and uninterested in being educated. Don't blame the fucking voters? Who then?

[Prozerran]

There are voters who care; there are voters who vote for candidates who are straight shooters. Just not enough of them. Most voters vote for the candidates whose entire campaigns are based on manipulating the ignorant. It's their fault that such people get elected, but anyone who cares who doesn't try to convince the ignorant of the error of their ways is also responsible. Only those who have done everything they can have the right to complain, as I see it.

Again, the power ultimately lies with the voters, who can remove anyone they like from office and put anyone they like in office. People get the leaders they deserve. If most voters are idiots, then the outcome is obvious. It's unfortunate, but these are the consequences of a populace that is, on average, poorly educated and uninterested in being educated. Don't blame the fucking voters? Who then?

We can look at this in one of two ways. Either we believe that the government is structured so that it serves the needs of its nation, or we believe that the government is NOT structured to serve those needs. If voters need more education to make a more informed decision, who's fault is that? When the needs of the population aren't being met, do we blame the population for not serving its own need? No, we look to the government that sees fit to take some of our liberties so that it can function to help us. I see no difference in the situation with education. We can argue all day long about the education of the ignorant, but it doesn't say much to say that the voters that do actually care enough to educate themselves on the issues aren't doing enough. At some point, we have to see patriotism as a double-edged sword. We can look at our nation as a nation of strength founded on the wisdom of men who lived the oppression of the European central banking institutions. Or, we can be patriotic in sticking to the ideals of what this nation stands for and accept that our government is run by power-hungry individuals who won't allow a true representative of the people ever take office again...

You say the voters are to blame, and it appears that your position is with the former.

I say the system is irreparably damaged and has allowed special interests to control elections, policy, and overall public well-being. My position appears to be with the latter.

So there we are.

[3Vee]

It doesn't matter how much we all insist on transparency in government if no candidate who runs on this platform (cough* cough* Paul) has delegate support. Don't blame the fucking voters - there are tens of millions among the public that support Paul who have pledged contribution after contribution. People already know that their vote, whatever it is, won't fucking matter. Read a political science textbook and you can read IN BLACK AND WHITE that the affect of a single vote will be less than a billionth of a percentage of the outcome of an election. It is statistically impossible for a single person's vote to ever radically sway the outcome of an election.

Which is why you don't just vote yourself, you go and try to convince other people to vote the same way. As long as it's just you in a sea of millions, sure, you're not going anywhere. But if you can convince some of the millions to come with you, you can start making a difference.

That's why people blame "the voters". "The system" doesn't help anything, but it's an essential principle of political theory - as I understand it - that no government can survive without at least the acquiescence of the populace, whatever the apparent power base.

That's why some nebulous "not trusting the government" or "suspecting special interest groups" idea isn't really going to accomplish anything. Everyone who pays any attention knows that this IS how things are done; if you want to change it, you need to get people to care. And you don't get people to care by telling them, "Too bad, the system won't let you care."

[Oblongato]

I also believe strongly that individual responsibility is the key to the success of any larger system. As 3Vee also writes, your power is not limited to your one vote. If you see a problem, communicate it to others; show them exactly what the problem is so that they can see it themselves.

"Smash the system!" isn't a solution either. There's plenty worth salvaging, and I personally have no desire to return to the stone age.

How does this actually sound?

When the needs of the population aren't being met, do we blame the population for not serving its own need? No, we look to the government that sees fit to take some of our liberties so that it can function to help us.

This statement better applies to a monarchy than it does to a democracy. As long as the voters do not show their displeasure by removing from office those who do not act in the interests of the citizenry, I can safely guarantee you that nothing will change. (And what, exactly, did you mean by "take some of our liberties"?)

The voters put all of the people making decisions in office, directly or indirectly, and they keep putting them there every 2 or 4 years in most cases. If you hire a bank robber to guard your bank, and the bank robber steals your money, who is to blame?

(It reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer is elected to the post of Sanitation Commissioner over the competent incumbent by making ridiculous false promises. Disaster ensues. And who is to blame, Homer, or the idiots who believed the promises and voted for him?)

Our politics are no different. Democracy is a system that places a great deal of responsibility on the citizenry. If voters put incompetents or cheats in office, they really have no one to blame but themselves.

[Prozerran]

I also believe strongly that individual responsibility is the key to the success of any larger system. As 3Vee also writes, your power is not limited to your one vote. If you see a problem, communicate it to others; show them exactly what the problem is so that they can see it themselves.

"Smash the system!" isn't a solution either. There's plenty worth salvaging, and I personally have no desire to return to the stone age.

How does this actually sound?



This statement better applies to a monarchy than it does to a democracy. As long as the voters do not show their displeasure by removing from office those who do not act in the interests of the citizenry, I can safely guarantee you that nothing will change. (And what, exactly, did you mean by "take some of our liberties"?)

The voters put all of the people making decisions in office, directly or indirectly, and they keep putting them there every 2 or 4 years in most cases. If you hire a bank robber to guard your bank, and the bank robber steals your money, who is to blame?

(It reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer is elected to the post of Sanitation Commissioner over the competent incumbent by making ridiculous false promises. Disaster ensues. And who is to blame, Homer, or the idiots who believed the promises and voted for him?)

Our politics are no different. Democracy is a system that places a great deal of responsibility on the citizenry. If voters put incompetents or cheats in office, they really have no one to blame but themselves.


I know hundreds, if not, thousands of people I would vote into office as President. The problem is, none of them would ever be on the ballot. The political system that puts someone on the ballot requires a great deal of financial strength and commitment. There are a handful of people with the kind of wealth it takes to run for office. So, I don't know where your naive idea that if we want someone who is of good moral and ethical character, we should vote for that candidate. You seem to think that such a person who has the ability to become rich enough to run for office has done so in the most ethical and moral way.

Seriously? You really think we, the voters, have the power to effect change?! Since when have we had the option between a poor candidate and a good candidate? They're all stupid politicians with agendas that couldn't give a shit about you or me. I don't think you have a realistic understanding of how our electoral system works at all.

(They're all Homer Simpson to me.)

[Oblongato]

Ah, so I am naive, am I? :)

Politicians may not necessarily be poor, on average, but if you want to find the truly rich, you need look no further than business. But being relatively well off does not necessarily make one corrupt anyway, so that's not argument. (Being truly rich does not necessarily make one corrupt either.)

I agree with one thing you've said so far: that many politicians do not appear to be particularly trustworthy. But each one of them was elected to office. By whom? And why? It was the voters who made these decisions. If they were really disgusted by what is going on in politics they would not vote for these candidates. They might even vote for other, better candidates. If they wanted honest candidates, they would only vote for honest candidates. But they apparently accept the situation as it is.

There may be a lot of Homer Simpsons out there; who's voting for them?

You say: politicians are evil. OK, fair enough - maybe so, a lot of them. But the problem in my view is stupid voters. Without them, Homer Simpson could not get elected.

I stand by my previous posts.

[GroG]

Here's what I don't understand - how can you say that we vote in the presidents? When most of the candidates drop out after the first couple states vote (I'm talking about democratic/republican nomination, not general election), then we are left with only a handful of choices.

Our choice of president is pretty much based on their money flow. If a candidate had lots of money to campaign with early on, got television time, and won the first state or two, that's pretty much it. The rest of the candidates drop out.

I mean, after Iowa and New Hampshire, how many candidates were there? 3? Bill Richardson didn't last much longer either..

When the general election rolls around, you either pick your ticket, or you throw away your vote to the independent or green party. They just don't have the money to get people to vote for them through television.

You can sit here and argue all day about stupid people and all that, but it really comes down to getting your name out there and having some momentum of winning states. If you lose the first few states, people immediately lose confidence in you. And getting your name out there in the first place costs lots and lots of money.

Finally, I'd like to say this - where do you think the candidates get their money to campaign? The amount of money it takes requires big business. As for Obama (I believe he said he hasn't taken any money from business), do you think it's a coincidence Oprah is extremely wealthy, well known, and endorsing him? Besides that, he could still be receiving anonymous donations from business, and I highly speculate that he has been.

Anyways, my point is that stupid people don't choose who wins elections, money does.

[Oblongato]

We vote in presidents, just not directly. We vote in people we trust to vote in a good president, technically speaking. And no candidate will drop out early if polls show that they have a chance in later primaries/caucuses. A candidate doesn't even have to show up in a state or run a single ad to win it if sufficient support is there. The problem is that the voters are too stupid/ignorant/apathetic to inform themselves and insist on being spoon-fed the information (that they are spoon-fed propaganda instead of facts and logical arguments doesn't seem to disturb them).

Our choice of president does indeed have to do with money flow, but only because idiot voters are so easily manipulated by things money can buy, like TV commercials. Anyone who casts a vote solely on the basis of a TV commercial is an idiot. Unfortunately, considering the effectiveness of TV commercials, there must be a lot of idiots out there...

Money is obviously not the only factor, though it is important. If it were the only factor, the wealthiest would win (Perot, Bloomberg?). But the fact remains, money is important because voters are stupid enough to be influenced by the means used to manipulate them. If people made their decisions based on what they read in books and periodicals, and even on the internet, money would not be a factor. It is only a factor because people are so easily manipulated, i.e. are so stupid/ignorant/apathetic.

I really don't understand all of these complaints about the powerlessness of voters. It is a fact that voters have the power to change whatever they want. They just misuse/abuse/fail to use it. They are poorly educated and poorly organized. Dissatisfied voters are free to get off their asses and do something about this embarrassing situation. Simply complaining about powerlessness will not, I'm afraid, solve the problem.

[Prozerran]

We vote in presidents, just not directly. We vote in people we trust to vote in a good president, technically speaking. And no candidate will drop out early if polls show that they have a chance in later primaries/caucuses. A candidate doesn't even have to show up in a state or run a single ad to win it if sufficient support is there. The problem is that the voters are too stupid/ignorant/apathetic to inform themselves and insist on being spoon-fed the information (that they are spoon-fed propaganda instead of facts and logical arguments doesn't seem to disturb them).

This is partially true. We do vote people into office that end up serving on the electoral college. But the "Super-Delegates" that decide who will run for the party are appointed by the party. We do not elect them.

Our choice of president does indeed have to do with money flow, but only because idiot voters are so easily manipulated by things money can buy, like TV commercials. Anyone who casts a vote solely on the basis of a TV commercial is an idiot. Unfortunately, considering the effectiveness of TV commercials, there must be a lot of idiots out there...

Again, only partially true. Yes there are a great many stupid people out there. The simple truth is it doesn't matter. Even the more educated individuals are going to be swayed by what they believe is the truth versus what is really the truth. The swift-boat campaign against Kerry is an excellent example. All it took was one or two people to go on T.V. and tell the world that Kerry lied about his activity in Vietnam. There were dozens outnumbering the few, but that's all it took.

Money is obviously not the only factor, though it is important. If it were the only factor, the wealthiest would win (Perot, Bloomberg?). But the fact remains, money is important because voters are stupid enough to be influenced by the means used to manipulate them. If people made their decisions based on what they read in books and periodicals, and even on the internet, money would not be a factor. It is only a factor because people are so easily manipulated, i.e. are so stupid/ignorant/apathetic.

The reason Bloomberg and Perot were able to run at all was because of money. The reason they didn't have a shot in hell of winning was because they ran independent. Look at the Bush family. Is it really all that mysterious to you that father and son have both been in office within a decade of one another? There's a family fortune behind it, and behind that fortune is a large Saudi interest at work. Could you be any more naive? Seriously?

I really don't understand all of these complaints about the powerlessness of voters. It is a fact that voters have the power to change whatever they want. They just misuse/abuse/fail to use it. They are poorly educated and poorly organized. Dissatisfied voters are free to get off their asses and do something about this embarrassing situation. Simply complaining about powerlessness will not, I'm afraid, solve the problem.

I highly doubt you've given ANY thought to this topic. You keep spewing the same childish vomit in every post. The simple truth is that a change will take place when someone of tremendous wealth works up the courage to make changes behind the scenes. This is highly unlikely, considering the mindset of those who have enough wealth to affect change. They often feel far removed from the problems of the lower classes and feel it is no longer their responsibility to do anything about it.

[Oblongato]

This is partially true. We do vote people into office that end up serving on the electoral college. But the "Super-Delegates" that decide who will run for the party are appointed by the party. We do not elect them.

There are a lot of decisions made by elected officials using their best judgment but without consulting the electorate. One of these is the appointment of so-called superdelegates. But what was that part of my point that wasn't true?

Again, only partially true. Yes there are a great many stupid people out there. The simple truth is it doesn't matter. Even the more educated individuals are going to be swayed by what they believe is the truth versus what is really the truth. The swift-boat campaign against Kerry is an excellent example. All it took was one or two people to go on T.V. and tell the world that Kerry lied about his activity in Vietnam. There were dozens outnumbering the few, but that's all it took.

More educated people fell victim to the swift boat ads? Are you sure about that? If they were influenced by the swift vote ads, I sure wouldn't call that smart. And what was the part of my point that wasn't true?

The reason Bloomberg and Perot were able to run at all was because of money. The reason they didn't have a shot in hell of winning was because they ran independent. Look at the Bush family. Is it really all that mysterious to you that father and son have both been in office within a decade of one another? There's a family fortune behind it, and behind that fortune is a large Saudi interest at work. Could you be any more naive? Seriously?

If voters were truly dissatisfied with other options, they could put pretty much whomever they wanted in office. The problem with Perot was that not enough people voted for him, period. (I certainly wouldn't have.) If voters are influenced by all of the expensive TV commercials, then they are idiots. Only the uninformed are swayed by such tactics. I agree that money helps win elections, primarily because most voters are ignorant/stupid/apathetic.

By the way, Bloomberg didn't run for president, to my knowledge. Or did I miss something?

And what's with the insults, getting desperate? ;)

I highly doubt you've given ANY thought to this topic. You keep spewing the same childish vomit in every post. The simple truth is that a change will take place when someone of tremendous wealth works up the courage to make changes behind the scenes. This is highly unlikely, considering the mindset of those who have enough wealth to affect change. They often feel far removed from the problems of the lower classes and feel it is no longer their responsibility to do anything about it.

(Nasty response to nastiness deleted.)

The corrupt are in power at the pleasure of the voters who put them there - and keep them there: voters who are ignorant/stupid/apathetic, or perhaps mentally ill. It is unfortunate, but more than partially true, in my judgment.

By the way, here's a link proving that the tremendously wealthy don't give a damn about the lower classes:

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm


How about a little civility next time around? I'm not attacking you personally; I just don't agree with your argument.

[Prozerran]

Ob:

I get the idea here that you have no idea how the electoral process in our nation works. Let me be the one to give you insight into this tricky little political system.

First and foremost, the idea that people are politically ignorant stems from the era when agriculture was the primary form of livelihood for Americans. This goes back to the colonial period, where people literally had NO ACCESS to the information they would need to make an informed political decision. For you to make the claim that voters are ignorant because they would make a decision simply off of a television advertisement is - in essence - more ignorant, because you seem to have absolutely NO idea how ignorance applies in the electoral process. Now you do. But let me take this further for you.

Because of the inability to spread political information (i.e. impaired reading skills, lack of visual media, etc), politicians could only get their message out via the news and by campaigning across the nation. But there was not enough time for a presidential candidate to travel to every single city, so a process was needed by which representatives from each state would vote for the candidates in lieu of the actual person who has no political knowledge. And behold, the electoral college was born.

Now, how does it work? I like taking the example of classrooms who vote for a class president. If this was structured as an electoral college voting system, then each classroom would have a certain number of electoral votes, or basically, a certain number of people that would serve on the electorate. Now, suppose we have 5 classrooms. For simplicity, lets say each classroom has 30 members. We have a total number of 150 people voting in this system. Assume we have two candidates, A & B.

Let's say classrooms one and two vote 30 to 0 for candidate A, and classrooms three, four, and five vote down the middle, 16 to 14 in favor of candidate B. Add the totals. There are 102 individual votes for candidate A. There are 48 votes for candidate B. Who wins? Candidate B, with 48 individual votes.

Like it or not, this is the basic structure for our electoral process. So, it doesn't matter whether voters are stupid or not. We use an outdated system that doesn't take into account the number of people in our nation who could feasibly vote in an informed fashion. The electoral college is comprised of people who are, granted, elected to office, but in contrast to your belief, are APPOINTED to the electorate. This is why the popular vote can be in favor of one candidate but the electorate can elect another. And if you take into account that certain states count more than others, you'll see why Ohio, Florida, Tennessee, California, and other states count MORE toward the vote than many other states. This is another example of how the system is outdated and in desperate need of reform.

Take it for what it's worth, but be informed about this before you spout off this textbook rhetoric like you have some semblance of understanding about the process. It really doesn't come down to the voters at all.

[Oblongato]

Was that a joke, or did you just try to explain the electoral college to me?

Erm... thanks, but it really wasn't necessary. Also, pity about the civility again. ;)

I have no idea, unfortunately, what any of that has to do with my point, which is that the voters can remove anyone they like from office, or put anyone they like in office. Yes, they may have to do so indirectly, by removing the people elected to make the decisions for them. But so what? A politician serves, directly or indirectly, at the pleasure of the electorate. It is truly the will of the people that is responsible for all of those bad people in office, not the system.

Personally, I think it is a very good thing that the ignorant/stupid/apathetic voters are not permitted to make all decisions directly. Thanks to the authority of elected officials to make decisions on behalf of the people without asking the people directly, a system is in place that prevents the whims of the public from creating chaos.

You seem to be ignoring an interesting fact. If no one had voted for George Bush in the popular vote, he would not have become president, electoral college or no electoral college. (Instances of faithless electors are quite rare, and even more rarely decisive.) Who do I blame for his being elected? Idiot voters. Or do you want to argue how it was the Saudis?

[3Vee]

More to the point, if we're discussing the relative importance of voters and the electoral college and "the system" is that the appointment of the members of the electoral college is in fact up to the states. Currently we have a "winning party take all" system based on the popular vote in place in most states, which is a heavy pressure for the maintenance of the status quo of the two-party (moderate and more moderate :P) system. A third party isn't going to stand much of a chance at the beginning, and with nothing to show for their efforts isn't going to get farther next time.

Of course, this doesn't effect either the states' governments or the election of senators and representatives, where, if a third party made a concerted effort, they might get somewhere. But the point about money is well-made; the current electoral process heavily favors the wealthy.

You can argue that it was always intended to. The Founders, by and large, both viewed wealth as symbolic of underlying responsibility or at least brains; in fact, most states originally had voting limitations based in property and/or money. Although you can say what you want to about whether this is a valid criterion, the underlying fact hasn't changed: most people don't know, don't understand, or don't care enough to make an informed decision. Even today in a mostly-literate society, the majority of people make up their minds based on TV ads or billboards, or just don't vote at all. The electoral college was designed to balance this influence, and while it once sort of did, there have been very few examples of the college not following the popular vote.

[Oblongato]

The benefits of the two-party system become clear when one looks at multi-party wrangling over the formation of (impotent) coalitions in countries like Germany or (eek!) Italy. Things can actually get done with a two-party system.

The fact that the two-party system still allows for independent parties, however, is important. If one or both of the two major parties ever strays far enough from the wishes of the electorate, conditions exist under which an independent party could actually take power. Which is a pretty good indication that not enough people are really fed up with the major parties to make a change.

I agree that the electoral process favors the wealthy, but this is in my view only to the extent that the voters are ill-informed and vulnerable to manipulation tactics. In an ideal world, voters would inform themselves about the declared candidates on the internet or with periodicals, examining their records and writings and perhaps watching a debate or two before making their decision. Superficial stump speeches, mailings and TV commercials should actually have no influence on well informed voters, and they make up a large percentage of the cost of running. That these things can be shown indeed to have a great influence is evidence of just how easily led voters are, on average.

[Prozerran]

The benefits of the two-party system become clear when one looks at multi-party wrangling over the formation of (impotent) coalitions in countries like Germany or (eek!) Italy. Things can actually get done with a two-party system.

What exactly does this mean? Are you saying that because of coalitions, things don't get done, or are you saying that things get done, just much slower than they could get done? Please clarify. In the meantime, I'm going to assume you are more or less implying the latter.

The fact that the two-party system still allows for independent parties, however, is important. If one or both of the two major parties ever strays far enough from the wishes of the electorate, conditions exist under which an independent party could actually take power. Which is a pretty good indication that not enough people are really fed up with the major parties to make a change.

It's more of an indication that things aren't changing as fast as the public, by and large, wishes they would. Let's assume that the majority of people are dissatisfied with our president. So what? He's there to stay until his term is over. There's nothing these people can do short of raiding the White House and the Pentagon for the material evidence that could be used to impeach him and his administration. The damage is done, and there's nothing voters can do now to stop it all until the next election, where it will still take an estimated 18 months or longer to completely and safely withdraw. Yet, with all this uncertainty, all this detraction from the both parties, the independents still don't have a shot in hell. Forgive me for being the bringer of bad tidings, but there's no point in running on an independent ballot in this century.

I agree that the electoral process favors the wealthy, but this is in my view only to the extent that the voters are ill-informed and vulnerable to manipulation tactics. In an ideal world, voters would inform themselves about the declared candidates on the internet or with periodicals, examining their records and writings and perhaps watching a debate or two before making their decision. Superficial stump speeches, mailings and TV commercials should actually have no influence on well informed voters, and they make up a large percentage of the cost of running. That these things can be shown indeed to have a great influence is evidence of just how easily led voters are, on average.

You have to think why the voters are ill-informed and vulnerable to manipulation tactics. The simple truth is that voters don't have all the information, whether for or against the policies proposed. Now, voters are obviously going to hear the pros and not the cons, it's the simple sale of the campaign. In the meantime, voters, not having all the information presented to them, are under the impression they're making the right choice when they aren't. Still the fault of the voters? In some cases, I'll concede, sure. In all cases? Hell no. Bush is one of those cases where I don't think the voters were at fault, at least in 2000. In 2004, well, I blame it just as much on Kerry as I do on Bush for being such a douche-bag. Like South Park so eloquently pointed out... we had the option of voting between a Douche-bag and a Turd Sandwich. Some choice...

[Oblongato]

What exactly does this mean? Are you saying that because of coalitions, things don't get done, or are you saying that things get done, just much slower than they could get done? Please clarify. In the meantime, I'm going to assume you are more or less implying the latter.

There isn't much difference, I suppose. With coalitions, the things that do get done tend to be very watered-down compromises, and other things are just not doable with with the weak support and tenuous grip on power such coalitions tend to have.

It's more of an indication that things aren't changing as fast as the public, by and large, wishes they would. Let's assume that the majority of people are dissatisfied with our president. So what? He's there to stay until his term is over. There's nothing these people can do short of raiding the White House and the Pentagon for the material evidence that could be used to impeach him and his administration. The damage is done, and there's nothing voters can do now to stop it all until the next election, where it will still take an estimated 18 months or longer to completely and safely withdraw. Yet, with all this uncertainty, all this detraction from the both parties, the independents still don't have a shot in hell. Forgive me for being the bringer of bad tidings, but there's no point in running on an independent ballot in this century.

You can't blame the system for the fact that Bush can't (realistically) be removed from office until the end of a four-year term. The voters who put him (back) there knew the rules when they voted. I'm pleased that many are now having a change of heart, but how could they have been that stupid and uninformed in the first place?

I agree that the circumstances do not favor a run by an independent at this time. I think people are far more satisfied than they let on with the two major parties. If they weren't, an independent candidate would have joined the race. I'll wager that it was internal polling that kept Bloomberg out of the race.

You have to think why the voters are ill-informed and vulnerable to manipulation tactics. The simple truth is that voters don't have all the information, whether for or against the policies proposed. Now, voters are obviously going to hear the pros and not the cons, it's the simple sale of the campaign. In the meantime, voters, not having all the information presented to them, are under the impression they're making the right choice when they aren't. Still the fault of the voters? In some cases, I'll concede, sure. In all cases? Hell no. Bush is one of those cases where I don't think the voters were at fault, at least in 2000. In 2004, well, I blame it just as much on Kerry as I do on Bush for being such a douche-bag. Like South Park so eloquently pointed out... we had the option of voting between a Douche-bag and a Turd Sandwich. Some choice...

I think in a country with public libraries, newspapers, Internet access etc. there is no excuse for not being informed. In countries where these things are not available it would be easier to argue for the victim status of voters. In the U.S. I call it apathy. Anyone who wants to be informed can inform him/herself easily. No one who sits idly by in the presence of opportunity can be called a victim, in my view. People who sit back and allow themselves to be spoon-fed what politicians offer them don't deserve to vote at all. As I mentioned in the "Organize a better society" thread, I would support voter licensing. Receiving a license to vote would require one to demonstrate comprehension of the process by passing a nationally available examination - similar to the SAT but covering only knowledge of the political system. To avoid the injustice that occurred during the civil rights movement, free prep courses would be available. I'm convinced that such a test would drastically reduce the number of voters, and drastically improve the quality of the votes.

[Prozerran]

There isn't much difference, I suppose. With coalitions, the things that do get done tend to be very watered-down compromises, and other things are just not doable with the weak support and tenuous grip on power such coalitions tend to have.

Oh, I think there's a difference. There's nothing more dangerous than a loaded bill (see the Patriot Act). It seems to me that slowing things down is definitely something we should consider, maybe not necessarily under a coalition, but there are definitive advantages to a government that doesn't hastily shift direction from election to election.



You can't blame the system for the fact that Bush can't (realistically) be removed from office until the end of a four-year term. The voters who put him (back) there knew the rules when they voted. I'm pleased that many are now having a change of heart, but how could they have been that stupid and uninformed in the first place?

See my previous response. Without reliable information, no one can make an intelligent decision as to whether one candidate is worthy of being elected. This word, "stupid", is really not all that appropriate here. Sure, there are those people who base their vote on non-subjective criteria (I like how s/he speaks when s/he makes a speech), but a good number of people actually have legitimate reasons for voting for the candidate they choose. Those reasons are more often related to preserving one's interests. I don't think it has to do with a voter's failure to think. They think well. Voters just have an interest in their own, small little world. They don't think about the impact such a choice would make on the rest of the world, nor do they have any reason to care if it never impacts their own livelihood.



I think in a country with public libraries, newspapers, Internet access etc. there is no excuse for not being informed. In countries where these things are not available it would be easier to argue for the victim status of voters. In the U.S. I call it apathy. Anyone who wants to be informed can inform him/herself easily. No one who sits idly by in the presence of opportunity can be called a victim, in my view. People who sit back and allow themselves to be spoon-fed what politicians offer them don't deserve to vote at all. As I mentioned in the "Organize a better society" thread, I would support voter licensing. Receiving a license to vote would require one to demonstrate comprehension of the process by passing a nationally available examination - similar to the SAT but covering only knowledge of the political system. To avoid the injustice that occurred during the civil rights movement, free prep courses would be available. I'm convinced that such a test would drastically reduce the number of voters, and drastically improve the quality of the votes.

I agree and I disagree. There is merit in having someone qualify their vote. There is also risk in setting the bar so high that someone of moderate intellect who disagrees with the political structure might fully understand the vote they are making but fail to meet the "political qualifications" or sophistication that such a measure might create. Some people have simple reasons that still make sense. Why elevate voting to some platform of elitism. There's nothing comfortable about requiring such a qualification, but I do see the need in having informed voting. I'm on the fence with this one.

[3Vee]

The benefits of the two-party system become clear when one looks at multi-party wrangling over the formation of (impotent) coalitions in countries like Germany or (eek!) Italy. Things can actually get done with a two-party system.

The problem with a two-party system is that it tends to become a one party system. Does anyone seriously think the majority of Democratic or Republican politicians care that much about their particular policy? Sure, the supposed division is still there, and there's a little bit of "right of middle"/"left of middle" divide compared to the "middle" of public opinion. But public policy for the last two decades hasn't changed much that I can tell - a few more environmental regulations when Dems have control, a few more "tax cuts" when Republicans have control, but that's about it.

Sure, multi-party systems are ineffectual when it comes to actually doing things, but there's a point of view that says you don't want the government doing much. I'm not sure I agree, but I think a government that can't do much is preferable to one that wastes money doing things they know no one cares enough about to object to.

[Oblongato]

Oh, I think there's a difference. There's nothing more dangerous than a loaded bill (see the Patriot Act). It seems to me that slowing things down is definitely something we should consider, maybe not necessarily under a coalition, but there are definitive advantages to a government that doesn't hastily shift direction from election to election.

Agreed, there are advantages and disadvantages to the two party system. But there are also checks built into the two party system preventing major changes (for example to the constitution) from being made without overwhelming support. Increased transparency and and some reforms wouldn't hurt, though. Still, if I had to choose, I'd go with the two-party system.

See my previous response. Without reliable information, no one can make an intelligent decision as to whether one candidate is worthy of being elected. This word, "stupid", is really not all that appropriate here. Sure, there are those people who base their vote on non-subjective criteria (I like how s/he speaks when s/he makes a speech), but a good number of people actually have legitimate reasons for voting for the candidate they choose. Those reasons are more often related to preserving one's interests. I don't think it has to do with a voter's failure to think. They think well. Voters just have an interest in their own, small little world. They don't think about the impact such a choice would make on the rest of the world, nor do they have any reason to care if it never impacts their own livelihood.

Perhaps the word "stupid" is unnecessarily derogatory. But ignorant is not. The educational system is failing the citizenry. An educated person (I'm talking high school here) should be able to analyze the reliability of information and compare it to other sources to get a good picture. Yet I often encounter people who are ill-equipped to deal with information on anything but the most basic level.

Beyond that, I would argue that voters who are concerned only with their personal advantage are too short sighted to be seen as thinking well. They are certainly not fulfilling their responsibility to choose the best possible government for the country.

I agree and I disagree. There is merit in having someone qualify their vote. There is also risk in setting the bar so high that someone of moderate intellect who disagrees with the political structure might fully understand the vote they are making but fail to meet the "political qualifications" or sophistication that such a measure might create. Some people have simple reasons that still make sense. Why elevate voting to some platform of elitism. There's nothing comfortable about requiring such a qualification, but I do see the need in having informed voting. I'm on the fence with this one.

Since the topic of voter qualification is so controversial, I would limit the test to a basic level of understanding of the function of government at a high-school reading level. I mean, should we really be allowing people to make decisions about the system who don't understand the system? There would be no ideological component to the test, and free courses would be available to anyone.

The problem with a two-party system is that it tends to become a one party system. Does anyone seriously think the majority of Democratic or Republican politicians care that much about their particular policy? Sure, the supposed division is still there, and there's a little bit of "right of middle"/"left of middle" divide compared to the "middle" of public opinion. But public policy for the last two decades hasn't changed much that I can tell - a few more environmental regulations when Dems have control, a few more "tax cuts" when Republicans have control, but that's about it.

Sure, multi-party systems are ineffectual when it comes to actually doing things, but there's a point of view that says you don't want the government doing much. I'm not sure I agree, but I think a government that can't do much is preferable to one that wastes money doing things they know no one cares enough about to object to.

OK. (See my comment above.)

[Prozerran]

Perhaps the word "stupid" is unnecessarily derogatory. But ignorant is not. The educational system is failing the citizenry. An educated person (I'm talking high school here) should be able to analyze the reliability of information and compare it to other sources to get a good picture. Yet I often encounter people who are ill-equipped to deal with information on anything but the most basic level.

Beyond that, I would argue that voters who are concerned only with their personal advantage are too short sighted to be seen as thinking well. They are certainly not fulfilling their responsibility to choose the best possible government for the country.


I'll be the first to admit that education isn't what it should be, but the way you put it here is just agonizingly stereotypical rhetoric (no offense).

"The educational system is failing the citizenry."

This is the most rhetorical nonsense of all, and the simple truth is you're making a broad generalization of American education, stating it as fact, then using it to support your position on 'ignorance' as *another* broadly generalized issue in voting. This is not the first time you've done this. In fact, a lot of the reasons why we tend not to agree on, well, anything really, is because of just this thing. I think if you stepped back to take a look at this position, you're going to understand why we are closer to agreement, but for completely opposing reasons.

1.) The rhetoric of 'bad American education'. Is education in America bad? No. It isn't. Why? Because we have it (We're on a small list of countries with education that gives us such basic abilities to capably communicate). In fact, we have a system that, by its own merit, provides people with knowledge. This knowledge is a basic understanding of oral communication and written discourse. The latter is specifically akin to that which can then be communicated through oral means. Does one need to have perfect grammar to develop this kind of understanding? No. One need only be able to comprehend discourse and form an opinion based on that information. In this basic sense, public schools do exactly what they set out to do. This is why Reading, Writing, and Mathematics are taught, and these are all taught in such a way that through repetition, this basic knowledge is thoroughly instilled.

Now, I'll be happy to discuss with you in another thread why I think schools in the U.S. aren't living up to their potential in another thread, but this should suffice for the sake of this discussion. In no way does your generalization of high school education apply to the issue of voter ignorance. Shall I tell you what actually applies to voter ignorance?

2.) The rhetoric of 'ignorance'. What is voter ignorance? Ignorance, specifically, is the lack of knowledge, education, or awareness. You see education and probably think, "OH, SEE, RIGHT THERE IT SAYS EDUCATION. HOW CAN YOU TELL ME EDUCATION DOESN'T HAVE TO DO WITH VOTER IGNORANCE??" Simply put, people are educated about what voting is, when to do it, where to go, why they should, and how to place their vote. In this very simple sense, education is not the issue. Knowledge is, and it's in understanding how paradoxical the relationship is between the bringers of knowledge and those who receive it.

Take the media, who by and large stay in business by keeping the attention of those voters who are basing their decisions on the information provided by those bringers of knowledge. But in order to keep the attention of the receivers, the media has to delegate the amount of time they focus on a particular topic or fact, whether or not it is pertinent to the election. Additionally, how would one go about educating citizens further about how to vote without slanting the information? Ignorance comes down to awareness. What are people aware of when they decide on a candidate, and what SHOULD they be aware of?

Awareness is where I find most of the difficulty in the voting process. I grew up in a rural community, so there are a lot of people I know who live very simple lives and don't pay much attention to the media at all. They hardly even care... they're not aware of the problems inherent in the choices they make, so why should they think twice about voting along party lines? I know one lady (and just adore her, funniest woman you'll ever talk to) who actually believed Saddam Hussein ordered 9/11. When she was informed that Hussein was confirmed to have NOT ordered the 9/11 attack, her response was a mild, care-free, "Oops, well, I did my civic duty and I guess I'll have to hope for better luck next time."

And this might infuriate you. You might just be sitting there thinking, "See, this proves my point entirely!" How? She has no access to reliable information on television. She only knows from her experience that the "party" that she's voted for in the past has consistently produced results she favors (up until now), and it doesn't really matter that she voted based on information she thought was right at the time. Hell, half the country believed it was right at the time. Were they wrong? Sure. But it doesn't matter, because they had no awareness of what it meant if Hussein wasn't actually involved at all. "He was still a bad man who killed his own people, so whether he was responsible or not, he still deserved to die." Maybe so, and they are right that Hussein deserved his fate (I believe he deserved his fate because the information I've found confirms that he committed atrocious acts). Too bad for the rest of his country though that the same people who were convinced that he was behind 9/11 were completely unaware of the reality of what an occupying force in Iraq would mean for millions of people in Iraq who were innocent of any wrongdoing.

It is so very, very, very important that we understand this dynamic. I'm not trying to come across as opposed to the idea of passing along more knowledge to voters, but I am opposed to the idea of basing the entire schema of voter ignorance on the rhetoric of "bad education." People can make an informed decision regardless of their level of education. They only need awareness of the consequences of the decisions they make. So, if this is what you are proposing with the following -

Since the topic of of voter qualification is so controversial, I would limit the test to a basic level of understanding of the function of government at a high-school reading level. I mean, should we really be allowing people to make decisions about the system who don't understand the system? There would be no ideological component to the test, and free courses would be available to anyone.

- then I agree. If not, then I suggest you go back and re-evaluate.

[MattTheFighter]

Can we trust our goverment?

If we can't trust the officals in the Goverment that most of the U.S. voted into Office, then who can we trust? I'm sure someone will say God or Church and thats fine. But look at what happens, just last week a man ran into a Black Church in Rural NC and shot the preacher, one of the Congregation, before being tackled to the Ground. Who can we trust at all? Why not just reconstruct those Cold War bunkers and hide in them?

[Oblongato]

First of all, I want to express my appreciation for your excellent post. (I still disagree with several things, but nevertheless...)

I'll be the first to admit that education isn't what it should be, but the way you put it here is just agonizingly stereotypical rhetoric (no offense).

Well, I'm not saying it's an original idea. Perhaps it sounds stereotypical because so many people are saying it. And see my comments below.

"The educational system is failing the citizenry."

This is the most rhetorical nonsense of all, and the simple truth is you're making a broad generalization of American education, stating it as fact, then using it to support your position on 'ignorance' as *another* broadly generalized issue in voting. This is not the first time you've done this. In fact, a lot of the reasons why we tend not to agree on, well, anything really, is because of just this thing. I think if you stepped back to take a look at this position, you're going to understand why we are closer to agreement, but for completely opposing reasons.

1.) The rhetoric of 'bad American education'. Is education in America bad? No. It isn't. Why? Because we have it (We're on a small list of countries with education that gives us such basic abilities to capably communicate). In fact, we have a system that, by its own merit, provides people with knowledge. This knowledge is a basic understanding of oral communication and written discourse. The latter is specifically akin to that which can then be communicated through oral means. Does one need to have perfect grammar to develop this kind of understanding? No. One need only be able to comprehend discourse and form an opinion based on that information. In this basic sense, public schools do exactly what they set out to do. This is why Reading, Writing, and Mathematics are taught, and these are all taught in such a way that through repetition, this basic knowledge is thoroughly instilled.

Now, I'll be happy to discuss with you in another thread why I think schools in the U.S. aren't living up to their potential in another thread, but this should suffice for the sake of this discussion. In no way does your generalization of high school education apply to the issue of voter ignorance. Shall I tell you what actually applies to voter ignorance?

Well, I really didn't expect you to dispute the poor quality of American education, since I assumed it was common knowledge and widely publicized. But since the issue is very relevant to the question of whether voters are too ignorant to make important decisions or not, here is some of the information that formed the basis of my claim:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States

Under this link you will find the following passage:

The national results in international comparisons have often been below the average of developed countries. In OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment 2003, 15 year olds ranked 24th of 38 in mathematics, 19th of 38 in science, 12th of 38 in reading, and 26th of 38 in problem solving. In addition, many business leaders have expressed concerns that the quality of education given in the US system is generally below acceptable standards, and should be adapted in order to conform to the needs of an evolving world. Bill Gates has famously stated that the American high school is "obsolete".The UNICEF Child Poverty Report:

http://www.unicef.org/media/files/ChildPovertyReport.pdf

Check out page 19 in particular, but the entire report gives a good perspective on where the U.S. really stands (in mathematical and scientific literacy fifth from the bottom in a list of 24 industrialized countries, for example).

Actually, I consider the election of George W. Bush to be strong evidence for a high degree of voter ignorance, for reasons I've gone into in other posts.

Apart from that, I went to an American high school, and while I realize that there are vast differences between high schools (another part of the problem, incidentally), I can speak for the lack of quality of that school. It was not so much the fact that the teachers were poorly qualified; some were well qualified. Rather, there was no system in place to compel students to perform. Some did, but many more did not, and many did not graduate. The dropout rate in the U.S. is also much higher than I would consider acceptable.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/cr_48.pdf

The Manhattan Institute puts the graduation rate for 2003 at only 70%. The educational system is most definitely failing the citizenry, or doing a lousy job, however you want to put it.

And even those who have not graduated may vote. Are such poorly educated people capable of evaluating the difference between propaganda and information, between lies and truth? I think in many cases not.

In brief: I consider the school system inadequate to equip Americans with the thinking skills necessary to make informed decisions in the voting booth.

2.) The rhetoric of 'ignorance'. What is voter ignorance? Ignorance, specifically, is the lack of knowledge, education, or awareness. You see education and probably think, "OH, SEE, RIGHT THERE IT SAYS EDUCATION. HOW CAN YOU TELL ME EDUCATION DOESN'T HAVE TO DO WITH VOTER IGNORANCE??" Simply put, people are educated about what voting is, when to do it, where to go, why they should, and how to place their vote. In this very simple sense, education is not the issue. Knowledge is, and it's in understanding how paradoxical the relationship is between the bringers of knowledge and those who receive it.

Take the media, who by and large stay in business by keeping the attention of those voters who are basing their decisions on the information provided by those bringers of knowledge. But in order to keep the attention of the receivers, the media has to delegate the amount of time they focus on a particular topic or fact, whether or not it is pertinent to the election. Additionally, how would one go about educating citizens further about how to vote without slanting the information? Ignorance comes down to awareness. What are people aware of when they decide on a candidate, and what SHOULD they be aware of?

To be truly informed, I would argue, one cannot sit passively and absorb the information that is thrown in one's direction by the media and the candidates themselves. Anyone interested in any kind of objective picture must seek out and examine the information on all sides of the issues and have enough background to interpret it and put it in perspective. These are thinking and research skills that are woefully inadequate in the American school system.

As I've mentioned before, many, if not most, people are ideologically motivated when they vote. If they agree with the ideology, then they already know whom they will vote for. The problem here is that ideology is in many cases like a religion (or is a religion). And there are many, many people for whom ideology is more important than facts. Consider the evolution debate.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml

According to this poll from 2005, 51% of the population reject evolution, which in scientific circles is acknowledged as fact. If this is not evidence of amazing ignorance and a failure of education, what is?

All ideologies are not equal, or equally logical. The ideology that leads 51% of the population to deny scientific fact is not evidence of a sufficient intellectual basis to vote, in my view.

Awareness is where I find most of the difficulty in the voting process. I grew up in a rural community, so there are a lot of people I know who live very simple lives and don't pay much attention to the media at all. They hardly even care... they're not aware of the problems inherent in the choices they make, so why should they think twice about voting along party lines? I know one lady (and just adore her, funniest woman you'll ever talk to) who actually believed Saddam Hussein ordered 9/11. When she was informed that Hussein was confirmed to have NOT ordered the 9/11 attack, her response was a mild, care-free, "Oops, well, I did my civic duty and I guess I'll have to hope for better luck next time."

I know a lot of people like that, and not just from my rural home town. They can be wonderful, caring people, but I would not consider them competent to make decisions that affect the running of the country. Perhaps the necessity of obtaining a voter license would motivate them to think a little more carefully about what they are doing before they leave that hanging chad.

And this might infuriate you. You might just be sitting there thinking, "See, this proves my point entirely!" How? She has no access to reliable information on television. She only knows from her experience that the "party" that she's voted for in the past has consistently produced results she favors (up until now), and it doesn't really matter that she voted based on information she thought was right at the time. Hell, half the country believed it was right at the time. Were they wrong? Sure. But it doesn't matter, because they had no awareness of what it meant if Hussein wasn't actually involved at all. "He was still a bad man who killed his own people, so whether he was responsible or not, he still deserved to die." Maybe so, and they are right that Hussein deserved his fate (I believe he deserved his fate because the information I've found confirms that he committed atrocious acts). Too bad for the rest of his country though that the same people who were convinced that he was behind 9/11 were completely unaware of the reality of what an occupying force in Iraq would mean for millions of people in Iraq who were innocent of any wrongdoing.

It is so very, very, very important that we understand this dynamic. I'm not trying to come across as opposed to the idea of passing along more knowledge to voters, but I am opposed to the idea of basing the entire schema of voter ignorance on the rhetoric of "bad education." People can make an informed decision regardless of their level of education. They only need awareness of the consequences of the decisions they make. So, if this is what you are proposing with the following -

Since the topic of voter qualification is so controversial, I would limit the test to a basic level of understanding of the function of government at a high-school reading level. I mean, should we really be allowing people to make decisions about the system who don't understand the system? There would be no ideological component to the test, and free courses would be available to anyone.


- then I agree. If not, then I suggest you go back and re-evaluate.

I was definitely not arguing that only the elite should be able to vote. My point is that people who do not even have a basic understanding of the political system or the issue, due to poor reading level, laziness or whatever, should not be allowed to vote, and they are not necessarily capable of making informed decisions, especially not on topics about which they know very little, nothing, or less than nothing (in the case of the misinformed).

It is obvious to me that people who labor under such glaringly false assumptions as "Saddam Hussein ordered 9/11" are not taking the running of the country seriously enough. They are free to be so apathetic that they believe such incredible nonsense, but they should not be allowed to put that ignorance to work in government. That's what got us George W. Bush.

Once more to be perfectly clear: I am not denying that these may be good people otherwise; a human being does not consist only of intellectual ability - there are many other qualities that are important.

But: ill- poorly- and misinformed people should not be allowed to vote, and it is largely the failure of education in the U.S. that has resulted in so many poorly qualified voters.

Can we trust our goverment?

If we can't trust the officals in the Goverment that most of the U.S. voted into Office, then who can we trust?

Indeed. We should be better judges of character. That, too, is an aspect of education. Many Americans fall victim to propaganda all too easily. How many Americans are good critical thinkers? I'll wager the number is smaller than the number of people who do not believe in evolution.

[Prozerran]

First of all, I want to express my appreciation for your excellent post. (I still disagree with several things, but nevertheless...)



Well, I'm not saying it's an original idea. Perhaps it sounds stereotypical because so many people are saying it. And see my comments below.


I'm glad you appreciate my response. Perhaps it sounds stereotypical because it's a stereotype. There's a problem here with thinking that education = responsible voting.


Well, I really didn't expect you to dispute the poor quality of American education, since I assumed it was common knowledge and widely publicized. But since the issue is very relevant to the question of whether voters are too ignorant to make important decisions or not, here is some of the information that formed the basis of my claim:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States

Under this link you will find the following passage:

The UNICEF Child Poverty Report:

http://www.unicef.org/media/files/ChildPovertyReport.pdf

Check out page 19 in particular, but the entire report gives a good perspective on where the U.S. really stands (in mathematical and scientific literacy fifth from the bottom in a list of 24 industrialized countries, for example).

Actually, I consider the election of George W. Bush to be strong evidence for a high degree of voter ignorance, for reasons I've gone into in other posts.

Apart from that, I went to an American high school, and while I realize that there are vast differences between high schools (another part of the problem, incidentally), I can speak for the lack of quality of that school. It was not so much the fact that the teachers were poorly qualified; some were well qualified. Rather, there was no system in place to compel students to perform. Some did, but many more did not, and many did not graduate. The dropout rate in the U.S. is also much higher than I would consider acceptable.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/cr_48.pdf

The Manhattan Institute puts the graduation rate for 2003 at only 70%. The educational system is most definitely failing the citizenry, or doing a lousy job, however you want to put it.

And even those who have not graduated may vote. Are such poorly educated people capable of evaluating the difference between propaganda and information, between lies and truth? I think in many cases not.

In brief: I consider the school system inadequate to equip Americans with the thinking skills necessary to make informed decisions in the voting booth.


I don't intend to sit here and debate the quality of American education with you in this thread. If you want to debate the problems and how they can be resolved, then we can do that in another thread. I know you've been trying to tie this into your argument as support for your position. The simple fact of the matter is that there are many who possess the thinking skills necessary to make informed decisions. It doesn't mean they're going to use them just because you think they should. Like I've already stated, when your only choices are a dousche and a turd sandwich, you really don't have a great decision in either case. If Kerry had been running against anyone other than Bush, he most certainly would have lost if his opponent had any real integrity and experience. Kerry just puked the same democratic rhetoric his entire campaign, and he thought that throwing Bush under the bus was his best chance to win the election. And that's why he lost. He focused on his opponent instead of on his own qualifications, and in 2000, we saw another case of two politicians who really didn't belong in office. Gore assumed he held the support of his own state and lost because he never campaigned in Tennessee. Let's not forget the fact that the supreme court decided the outcome of that election. You seem to think that there are these "obvious" choices that one could make only if they had the capacity to "think critically" about the outcome of their vote. It's not so clear cut.


To be truly informed, I would argue, one cannot sit passively and absorb the information that is thrown in one's direction by the media and the candidates themselves. Anyone interested in any kind of objective picture must seek out and examine the information on all sides of the issues and have enough background to interpret it and put it in perspective. These are thinking and research skills that are woefully inadequate in the American school system.

As I've mentioned before, many, if not most, people are ideologically motivated when they vote. If they agree with the ideology, then they already know whom they will vote for. The problem here is that ideology is in many cases like a religion (or is a religion). And there are many, many people for whom ideology is more important than facts. Consider the evolution debate.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml

According to this poll from 2005, 51% of the population reject evolution, which in scientific circles is acknowledged as fact. If this is not evidence of amazing ignorance and a failure of education, what is?

All ideologies are not equal, or equally logical. The ideology that leads 51% of the population to deny scientific fact is not evidence of a sufficient intellectual basis to vote, in my view.


Again, I'm not going to sit here and debate the detachment people seem to have from reason and the causes of it. I'd throw it out there, though, that the religious institutions certainly aren't helping. Should we, in the effort to be consistent, decline any voter who attends church from voting in our elections? This is just a fine line we don't want to cross, lest we drift into the realm of extremes that take us even further away from the fundamental values that all people, no matter their system of values, inherently have the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the freedom to have their voices heard in elections.


I know a lot of people like that, and not just from my rural home town. They can be wonderful, caring people, but I would not consider them competent to make decisions that affect the running of the country. Perhaps the necessity of obtaining a voter license would motivate them to think a little more carefully about what they are doing before they leave that hanging chad.

I was definitely not arguing that only the elite should be able to vote. My point is that people who do not even have a basic understanding of the political system or the issue, due to poor reading level, laziness or whatever, should not be allowed to vote, and they are not necessarily capable of making informed decisions, especially not on topics about which they know very little, nothing, or less than nothing (in the case of the misinformed).

It is obvious to me that people who labor under such glaringly false assumptions as "Saddam Hussein ordered 9/11" are not taking the running of the country seriously enough. They are free to be so apathetic that they believe such incredible nonsense, but they should not be allowed to put that ignorance to work in government. That's what got us George W. Bush.

Once more to be perfectly clear: I am not denying that these may be good people otherwise; a human being does not consist only of intellectual ability - there are many other qualities that are important.

But: ill- poorly- and misinformed people should not be allowed to vote, and it is largely the failure of education in the U.S. that has resulted in so many poorly qualified voters.


To get back on track with the topic of this thread, I think there's some legitimacy to saying people have become "thought-poor" today due to the trust they have been placing in politicians to lead them. There are a LOT of people out there that vote in an "informed" fashion who vote for a candidate I would not vote for. And who am I to say they made the wrong decision to vote for that candidate, and who am I to tell that person they should never vote again because their choice turned out to be a lame duck?

No matter how much education you expect someone to have, they aren't going to vote for the candidate you would vote for in every election. It doesn't make them poorly qualified to vote. It makes the system poorly structured when it only allows assholes with money to run for elections and leave us with shitty options. You can't fix that with voter certification. You fix shit like that by reforming the system.

[Icarus]

Damn it took me like 20 minutes to read the whole thread...


Finally, such a scheme would backfire completely, I believe. Although I may be overly optimistic, I believe the US has reached a point in race relations where such a death would cause a wave of sympathy for the "cause" Obama stood for, and while the effects might not be immediate, it would show eventually, faster than would be safe for this "military-industrial complex" to take direct power, and that would destroy the power base of the complex, at least temporarily.

what in the course of history, has happened repeatedly to the theories of revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes fighting for emancipation. During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, receiving their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the consolation of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it

originally quoted by someone in a discussion about martin luther king in another forum, but I found it relevant to this point.
Can we trust our government?

Consider:

- A group of people whose purpose is to lead
- The benefits they gain by doing so are:
- Financial gain
- Political power
- Notoriety
- They can milk the last two for additional of the first, and use the first to get re-elected.

Thus:

So long as elections are highly affected by the financial resources of the politicians campaigning, politicians will sell their political power and notoriety for financial gain.

Now, who *buys* this political power and notoriety, and for what purpose?

- Individuals (including corporations) seeking advertisement or regulation/deregulation
- Uh, that's it.

So: We have a system by which your attention, through money spent campaigning, can be transferred into votes, by which a politician is elected, by which the power therein gained can be sold to:
- produce more money with which to buy your attention, and
- serve the interests (directly, through policy, or indirectly, through advertisement) of individuals who have money.

In either case, the money comes from YOU, in either
- taxes, or
- your donations/purchases of services from individuals (once again, including corporations)

Essentially: We have a system that, through its process of election and the specifics of the powers therein granted and lack of regulation as to how they are used and manipulated, creates a feedback loop of corruption wherein:
- Your money is taken in order to
- Take more of your money

The press, the media, exists to combat this, to provide a counter to the money spent trying to purchase votes. Unfortunately, the media has also been purchased by individuals (or corporations), which play this game as well.

Now, this isn't to say that non-corrupt officials cannot exist: they must, however, combat the overwhelming odds placed against them by a system that rewards corruption.

So no, I don't think it's reasonable to say you can trust your government.

You oversimplify things way too much in this post.

They don't take your money with the sole purpose of taking more money. You didn't take the time to think of what it is the state gives you.

Most important, is security. I trust, have trusted, will trust, and have been satisfied in this trust in our government funded police force to do their best to keep citizens out of harms way. Same goes to other services like public hospitals and firehouses.

The state creates the economic context where you can get a paying job. A completely unregulated economy is inevitably a bad thing for the non-possessed folks.

As to stupid voters, I completely agree with oblongato, and I wouldn't limit a citizens power just to votes. People often forget that this nation was formed by people grabbing muskets and heading into the woods because they were fed up with their rulers. It was not some democratic vote. There wasn't even a majority among the people who advocated armed revolt, But it happened, and the people were happier afterwards than they were before.

There are public libraries where you can access the internet as well as untold amounts of literature (which contain the best insight) to help anyone open their minds to matters of importance, as well as the means to determine how to act upon present conditions to make better future conditions, and I wouldn't limit it to just voting for the right person.

People need to shout. They need to get angry. They need to become aware and feel sympathy for their nation-fellows who have lost their jobs because an under-class asian is willing to do the job for less than scraps, and the under-class asian needs to do the same thing because he is in such a decrepit state as to accept such an offer.

cor-rupt
-adjective
1.guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked: a corrupt judge.

It is not the politicians who are corrupt for enabling policies that benefit the elite at the expense of the working masses, but it is the non-administrate citizenry that are corrupt for giving them the means to do so, for not acting on such injustices, for being unaware, illiterate, ignorant, apathetic, and stupid


I will edit this later...

[Oblongato]

I'm glad you appreciate my response. Perhaps it sounds stereotypical because it's a stereotype. There's a problem here with thinking that education = responsible voting.

You say stereotype; I say simple truth. What exactly is the problem with associating lack of (quality) education with an inability to make informed choices in the voting booth?

I don't intend to sit here and debate the quality of American education with you in this thread. If you want to debate the problems and how they can be resolved, then we can do that in another thread. I know you've been trying to tie this into your argument as support for your position. The simple fact of the matter is that there are many who possess the thinking skills necessary to make informed decisions. It doesn't mean they're going to use them just because you think they should. Like I've already stated, when your only choices are a dousche and a turd sandwich, you really don't have a great decision in either case. If Kerry had been running against anyone other than Bush, he most certainly would have lost if his opponent had any real integrity and experience. Kerry just puked the same democratic rhetoric his entire campaign, and he thought that throwing Bush under the bus was his best chance to win the election. And that's why he lost. He focused on his opponent instead of on his own qualifications, and in 2000, we saw another case of two politicians who really didn't belong in office. Gore assumed he held the support of his own state and lost because he never campaigned in Tennessee. Let's not forget the fact that the supreme court decided the outcome of that election. You seem to think that there are these "obvious" choices that one could make only if they had the capacity to "think critically" about the outcome of their vote. It's not so clear cut.

I'm not trying to tie the moribund educational system into my argument, I am tying the moribund educational system into my argument. Well-informed voters, who I would argue make up a small minority of the total number of voters, are being short-changed by the educational system, not the political system. The fact that there are so many voters who are ignorant, apathetic, stupid or a combination of the three is destroying the system.

Have you asked yourself why the choice was between a douche and a turd sandwich? Who voted in the primaries and caucuses? It was American voters who picked those wonderful candidates. (The argument that the electoral college is not a direct vote has little meaning here because states bind their electors to the results of the popular vote.)


Have you asked yourself why money plays such a large role in American elections? What does money buy, after all? (Actually, all of what I am writing here is already in the Daschle thread in Election Central.) It buys TV commercials, direct mailings, pays for traveling around and making idiotic stump speeches etc. All of these things amount to propaganda. Who is influenced by this propaganda? Exclusively the ignorant, the apathetic, the stupid and the gullible. If all voters were taught to read, taught to think critically, taught not to trust obvious propaganda, money would have a much, much smaller influence on elections. The information necessary to make an informed choice is out there, and it's free. The problem is, only a few people make the effort to find it. Most sit at home in front of the TV and think they are well informed because they have been spoon-fed propaganda.

A decent education would greatly reduce this problem.

Again, I'm not going to sit here and debate the detachment people seem to have from reason and the causes of it. I'd throw it out there, though, that the religious institutions certainly aren't helping. Should we, in the effort to be consistent, decline any voter who attends church from voting in our elections? This is just a fine line we don't want to cross, lest we drift into the realm of extremes that take us even further away from the fundamental values that all people, no matter their system of values, inherently have the right to life, liberty, the pu