Activism and Politics > Politics

Legal hate-GLBT fest continues . . . adoptions by GLBT targeted.

<< < (2/3) > >>

Alexandra:
I'm also disagreeing with Melissa.

The more one understands politics, the more the electoral college makes sense. Its a check system forcing Presidential candidates to go out and campaign in most of the states instead of focusing in the top 5 or 10 biggest cities in the USA. No small state is going to give up the strength they have now and give up the electoral college.

But here's the main thing -- the electoral college has been in existence for a long time -- everybody knows the EC rules long in advance of any election, and its how we elect Presidents. Why would any outcome be "a problem"?

The argument that one's vote doesn't matter is pure nonsense. In fact, it matters MORE with the electoral college since there are 51 opportunites out of 100 million cast ballots for one vote to decide an election as opposed to 1 opportunity out of 100 million if the EC was done away with.

Then there's the argument for "middle of the road candidates" . . . well guess what, regardless of all the talk, people in America don't want them and they're speaking with their ballot choices. In 1994 people had a shot for picking moderate Ross Perot. He was no where near a win. In 2000, 2 opportunites -- Ralph Nader and also John McCain in the Republican Primary. Both shot down. People by the virtues of their votes mostly went either right or left.

The people have spoken, its not the candidates fault -- they know moderates can't win. Blame the voters cuz they're not voting for any of them enough to win.

IMO some political reform is needed, but the electoral college is just fine.

Sure, politics can be tough and heated to talk about, but there is nothing more important than deciding who speaks for us. With me in particular, I don't like being told what to do in my life (or with my life) with that in mind, I find politics easy to discuss because I know exactly who I DON'T to represent me so that decision is easy.  8)

melissa_girl:
I'll give an example of a time when me voting didn't matter.  In the 2004 Presidential election for George W Bush and Al Gore, I did not vote because I had moved and didn't renew my voter registration card.  Our state won as a democratic vote, which I was intending to vote for anyway, but the Republican party one by a very small number of votes because of the EC system.  However, by popular vote, Democrats would have won.  If I had voted, it wouldn't have made a lick of difference because the state won what I was going to vote anyway.

Now keep in mind, my parents are Republican and my wife is a Democrat.  Guess which one has been more supportive of me being a transsexual?  My wife.  It seems to be very common for republicans to mix religion and politics.  Not a very good mix in my opinion.  That's also one of the big reasons I am not a republican.

Melissa

Cassandra:

--- Quote ---In 1994 people had a shot for picking moderate Ross Perot.
--- End quote ---

It wasn't Perot's moderate stance that lost him the election. He was doing very well and stood a good chance of winning. It was dropping out of the race on the pretext that his daughters wedding had been threatened by party operatives. Republican Democrat doesn't really matter. What mattered was he claimed some conspiracy plot against his family and quit then turned around and reentered the race. The damage was already done. That was what lost him the race.

Nader a moderate? I don't know what your definition of a moderate is but in my book Nader and is green party are not it. His party was too far left on the environment and perceived to be in league with radical environmentalists who are viewed by many Americans to be nothing more than amateur terrorists. Nader may be a great consumer advocate but we are judged by the company we keep. His candidacy was doomed.

McCain was perceived by many republicans to be a traitor to conservatisim hence he was not going to get the Republican nomination. Being moderate had nothing to do with it. IMO

Cassie

Chaunte:

--- Quote from: Cassandra Anna Hefton on February 23, 2006, 03:40:28 am ---It wasn't Perot's moderate stance that lost him the election. He was doing very well and stood a good chance of winning. It was dropping out of the race on the pretext that his daughters wedding had been threatened by party operatives. Republican Democrat doesn't really matter. What mattered was he claimed some conspiracy plot against his family and quit then turned around and reentered the race. The damage was already done. That was what lost him the race.

Nader a moderate? I don't know what your definition of a moderate is but in my book Nader and is green party are not it. His party was too far left on the environment and perceived to be in league with radical environmentalists who are viewed by many Americans to be nothing more than amateur terrorists. Nader may be a great consumer advocate but we are judged by the company we keep. His candidacy was doomed.

McCain was perceived by many republicans to be a traitor to conservatisim hence he was not going to get the Republican nomination. Being moderate had nothing to do with it. IMO

Cassie

--- End quote ---

Another thing that cost Ross the election was his vice-presidental candidate.  I wasn't convinced of his ability to lead the nation despite his background in the military.  (He was an admiral, asn't he?)

I look at the VP choice as the first indication of the character of the presidential candidate.  FOr me, the VP debate is muh more telling of the candidates.  Ross' VP choice didn't even listen.  He turned his two hearing aids off whenever he wasn't speaking.

I have heard the Green Party described as the Red Party wearing a different color.  Nader was in bed with the wrong group to ever be accepted.

Chaunte

Alexandra:
I'll yield to the argument that the green party may not be a true "moderate" party.  8)

However, I still stand by my argument that Americans don't want independent party moderates dominating politics. If they did, they'd all be in office and the conservatives and liberals will be fighting to regain seats lost to moderates.

I suppose the Ross bashing might have had some effect, HOWEVER, nothing compares to the bashing McCain got from Bush in 2000. If the Republicans didn't go for moderate Republican McCain in 2000, I don't see how how enough Republicans will abandon the GOP to vote for an independent party Moderate in 2008.  An independent will have to draw mostly from the Democrats and with Hillary Clinton (darned close to a moderate by the way) leading the polls, I don't see many Democrats doing the same either.

IMO I don't think Ross had any chance -- he had an impressive start by getting guite a few people to abandon their parties early -- but they were already on the fence -- getting enough hard core Demos and GOP faithful to leave their party was not likely to happen.

I'll yield on one thing though . . . if Bush continues to stumble around and the Demos remain rather aimless in leadership as the election approaches, 2008 might be another good year for an independent -- perhaps 20 percent of the vote . . . but to win an election outright, I don't think so. I suppose its good all this is just my opinion!  8)


Posted at: February 24, 2006, 12:28:38 AM
--- Quote from: Chaunte Marie on February 23, 2006, 09:22:45 pm ---Another thing that cost Ross the election was his vice-presidental candidate.   

--- End quote ---

I'll agree there. That was a bonehead decision. Perot should have selected a wise and respectable "name" and the race would have been a bit more interesting.


Posted at: February 24, 2006, 12:31:50 AM
--- Quote from: melissa_girl on February 23, 2006, 12:51:15 am ---It seems to be very common for republicans to mix religion and politics. 

--- End quote ---

Yes, many in the GOP tend to "use" God to get elected. Its been working quite nicely too.  :(

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version