everybody can vote now in the USA online

go to www.the99declaration.org if your a US citizen

but they do allow input from foreigners

Is anyone here registered as a member of a specific political party? (Do they even that have that system in the Commonwealth?)

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

I'm not in the Commonwealth, but I'm a registered Democrat. Former Libertarian.

Do you belong to a state that has a fairly active opposition/third=party system?

I live in the lovely backwater of Utah, so outside of Salt Lake City I'm fairly certain that the democratic party doesn't even have county offices/leaders lol.

On the plus side, I can become a registered member of-count them- 5 different third parties, all more right-wing than the last.

ooh this topic is so open for comment, well my comments anyway.

Quote from: Cindy James on December 30, 2011, 01:19:59 AM
I'm with Karen,
Compulsory voting in Australia. Personally I think it should be compulsory in every democratic country. At least everyone then has to take the blame for voting in the jerk. But we vote for individual members of a political party, the party with the majority is then the ruling party and they choose their leader. We don't officially vote for the Prime Minister.

I am from Australia and like Cindy said, we have compulsory voting in Oz, they (the political parties) value our freedom of speech so much they will fine you for using your right to free speech and not voting. So much for free speech huh. One election I forgot to vote so I put down the reason for not voting as "I was at work" the Returning Officer rang me and said "working in a Polling Booth doesn't count" (where votes are cast), although they didn't fine me.

Quote from: Guantanamera on December 31, 2011, 01:56:27 AM
Do you belong to a state that has a fairly active opposition/third=party system?

I live in the lovely backwater of Utah, so outside of Salt Lake City I'm fairly certain that the democratic party doesn't even have county offices/leaders lol.

On the plus side, I can become a registered member of-count them- 5 different third parties, all more right-wing than the last.

From Wikipedia:

The following is a list of political parties officially recognized by the Oregon Elections Division as statewide parties as of June 21, 2011 (alphabetical, by title in official record).

    * Constitution Party (see also United States Constitution Party)
    * Democratic Party (see also United States Democratic Party)
    * Independent Party of Oregon
    * Libertarian Party (see also Libertarian Party (United States))
    * Oregon Republican Party(see also United States Republican Party)
    * Pacific Green Party (see also United States Green Party)
    * Progressive Party (Known as the "Oregon Peace Party" until September 18, 2009)
    * Working Families Party of Oregon (see also Working Families Party)

Lol until I looked it up I did not know that the Progressive Party and the Oregon Peace Party were the same people.

I always think Oregon is super left wing, but I live in Portland. As a state overall we've got enough conservatives and pioneer types that it kinda balances out.

And, what pray tell do they do in OZ if they don't like the candidate their party is running?  You have three types (and this has been exhaustively researched) of people in the US who don't vote.  One, (surprisingly or not, this is the majority of them) people who are basically happy with the way things are, see no real need to change and don't feel it's important.  Two, people who are 'dropped out' of system in one way or another, either too poor, too rootless, or don't feel it makes a difference, or just don't want to encourage them.  Three, (the 'swing' votes - or swing non-votes, if you will - in most elections) people who don't like the choice/direction of the political party of their choosing.

Very few people in the US who are hard-core Democrats, or Republicans will likely vote for the other party.  This system is not structured in that way.  No Republican who feels (for example) that Mitt Romney is not 'conservative' enough is going to vote for Obama because of it.  No Democrat who thinks that Obama is too center/moderate/compromising is going to cast a vote for Michele Bachman as a protest.  There are a relatively small number of 'independents' (not registered to either party) who do switch votes around, but they don't derail and lose an election like it does when the base does not come out and support their party.

Tekla I will use some terms loosely for the sake of argument.

What you have is a political dictatorship that means the 'party' that has the most voters gets elected.  In Australia it is more democratic because if the populace thinks the clowns wear the same funny nose they do not get a majority. In practise the political parties HAVE to get support from the populace. The minority of voters are party members so the majority have to think about it and be convinced.

Yes there is a chance of a massive donkey vote, there is always the chance of a hung parliament, not a bad thing BTW. And it allows minor parties to develop and get power, either as independents or as a coalition.


We have had political parties come and go. At the moment Australia is run by a Labour government with support from independents and the 'greens' so people outside of the political party can demand big changes in policy. I'm not sure if that is possible in the USA at a Fed level?

For example this is forcing same sex marriage through, because a key independent has made it a condition to support the Lab P.

Oh BTW

Happy New Year,

Any good shows?

Cindy

Well I saw Jubilee! with my friends and GF in Vegas, awesome seats ('cause I know how to kiss ass on a ticket sales person, that's why.  P.S.  Tipping helps!  Really.  People can be bought, and usually pretty cheaply.) and it was fantastic.  Really one of the best shows I've seen in years.  Snoop Dogg sucked, just a parody of himself anymore.  Eryka Badu was good as usual, but kinda flat, she needs to start exploring some new directions.  This DJ from Sweden was as good as  DJ gets without being Paul Oakenfold circa 1999, Further was kinda of tired, slow, sloppy changes, but that was the first of three nights and they should pick it up (cause they can't sound any worse, can they?).

My day and a half with Metallica (and Lou Reed, and Marianne Faithful (yeah, her) and some of the guys from King Diamond and Anthrax, Mike Judge of Bevis and Butthead and all sorts of 'don't you know who I am!' types¹) would require it's own post, it's pretty funny really.  Sad too.

I'm doing Tedeschi Trucks Band tonight.  She's a kick ass blues guitar player, excellent singer who's family name is associated with a small chain of grocery stores on the East Coast, and he's the guitar phoneme, nephew of Butch Trucks, original percussion player for the Allman Brothers, so that's his story.  They met, fell in love (she's a bit older) and now they play together.  That's my NYE.


..................................
But see...
We don't have a national political system.  Its' the United States, and the states have a huge power when it comes to elections, and, at that - there is NO national election for any national office.  Unless you count American Idol.  Elections for President are really not for the office, but for electors on some formula derived by the state itself (so it's not universal, some apportion, some are winner take all) who meet later and actually vote the joker in.  The states could just go ahead and appoint electors, or have their state senate do it.  They used to.  Direct election of US senators is only pretty recent as the nation goes. 

And we don't have 'hung Parliament' - hell if we got those guys hangin' we'd never let them down - but we have (and apparently LOVE) divided government where the executive and the legislative are split to different parties.  Or the House from the Senate.  Or the states from the Feds.  Or some wacky combination of all of the above like the one we currently have going on, and under that many of the state governments are further split executive/legislative and house and senate.  Obviously (and its sure a lot easier to see this looking in, than from the inside out) we DON'T MUCH LIKE OR TRUST EITHER PARTY.  Hence the constant pitting.

There is also something else that is really driving it.  Demographics.  People move, in the US people move a lot.  Tons.  Far more than other nations.  And there have always been some pretty sharp reasons for moving from one place to another.  Opportunity, new job, a job, a promotion, school - all that stuff.  And people have moved because of the weather, or the climate.  But over the last 20 years lots, and lots, and lots of people have moved because of the social climate/scene.  There were always people moving for 'lifestyle' kinds of reasons since the 1900s, but since the 60s more and more people are choosing a place to live based on that, and the kind of people those places attract.  And it seems to be working across the board as more liberal areas gain more and more liberal minded people, and as conservative places attract people who are attracted to that kind of society.  That's what the real red/blue split in the US is really all about, and it's it's only going to get deeper and deeper that way.  California and New York are going to continue to get more progressive, and Iowa looks more and more like A Handmaiden's Tale every year.

And the names of the parties don't change, but the policies do.  The Democrats have basically become what the East Coast Republicans always were.  The Republicans moved so far to the right to get out of their way that they are in danger of falling off the political map and becoming something else, and it's about time.






1.  I used to love to say "I'm the janitor, am I supposed to?" which would always set them back a second before they decided that they were OK with me NOT knowing them.  Sean Penn is the only guy who never tripped up on that one.  Now I just look at 'em real hard and say, "Nope, do I get a hint?".

Our two party system is a bit messed up, and I have voted Green Party in protest. I'll never argue that it was the right thing to do, though. I don't have that conviction.

Tekla I love the "i'm the janitor" thing. Genius.

I'm pretty liberal, and I moved to a liberal place (though for mostly-unrelated reasons), and lol I felt the need to apologize to my people back in Alabama. Oregon certainly didn't need me.

We have six  states and two territories that have state parliaments, these are the people who ruin our daily lives, we then have the Federal government. There is a reasonably constant feud between the states and the feds, even when they are from the same side of politics.

We also have continual movement of people between the states which alters the demographics incredibly. The wealth of the states is also totally different. West Australia is enormous and is very wealthy from mining, but has a small population. South Australia is also a very large state with the World's biggest copper and Uranium mine at Roxby Downs. Victoria is comparatively small but has a large population and industry base.

Tasmania is small and has forests and Justmeinoz as the major assets (sorry Karen ).

So political opinion changes a lot from place to place depending on where the money comes from. For example Federal Labour don't want Uranium exported, South Australian Labour are totally in support of exporting it, so our issues get clouded

Quote from: Cindy James on January 01, 2012, 12:22:38 AM
We have six  states and two territories that have state parliaments, these are the people who ruin our daily lives, we then have the Federal government. There is a reasonably constant feud between the states and the feds, even when they are from the same side of politics.

We also have continual movement of people between the states which alters the demographics incredibly. The wealth of the states is also totally different. West Australia is enormous and is very wealthy from mining, but has a small population. South Australia is also a very large state with the World's biggest copper and Uranium mine at Roxby Downs. Victoria is comparatively small but has a large population and industry base.

Tasmania is small and has forests and Justmeinoz as the major assets (sorry Karen ).

So political opinion changes a lot from place to place depending on where the money comes from. For example Federal Labour don't want Uranium exported, South Australian Labour are totally in support of exporting it, so our issues get clouded

so they do have Tasmanian ANGELS TOO    

Quote from: justmeinoz on December 11, 2011, 06:43:13 AM
In Australia voting is compulsory.

I think that's coming in the U.S. The percentage of people who vote has been dropping. People are losing faith in "the system" which is good. I see it as a sort of irrational religion, the latest man-made god, and I'm an atheist. Well, not really. I just don't believe in man-made gods.

So they will have to go to more extreme measures to prop up the delusion that the serfs have any say in anything. Our republic or democracy or whatever you want to call it is looking less and less legitimate. More and more people are becoming conspiracy theorists. The government is labeling more and more dissenters as terrorists. They will likely make voting mandatory to maintain the illusion that we're all participating in our own governing rather than being exploited, controlled, and manipulated.

Nah, I don't think they will ever make voting mandatory, too much at risk - too many people who don't vote now because they think it makes no difference, and that suits the power structure just fine.  The actual trend is in the exact opposite direction which sees ongoing voter suppression efforts in many states.

What I see is that for the past three years republicans have been doing nothing but preventing Obama from pursuing the Democratic agenda. Maybe that's fine, it's within their rights and they can argue that keeping Democratic programs from going forward is in itself an accomplishment, but I don't think so.  They literally have nothing to showcase in terms of what they've achieved since 2009. Their programs consist of three word slogans -- Taxed Enough Already, Drill, Baby, Drill--with nothing substantive to show for them and plenty of examples of the counterproductive effects of their intransigence (i.e., loss of the AAA credit rating from S&P) and a series of frivolous and symbolic wastes of time and money in Congress.

So on one level the Republicans are directionless and they have nothing to offer the country.  Their legitimate candidates--Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Gary Johnson, Rudy Giuliani, Jon Huntsman--have either studiously avoided the nomination process or have already been ignominiously rejected. The fact that they would even consider "candidates" like Donald Trump and Herman Cain shows how intellectually bereft they have become. It's scary because, as the republicans marginalize themselves, the country heads more and more towards one party rule.  At this point the only way the republicans can win in November is through scare tactics, veiled appeals to racism and misogyny, and an economic downturn which they actually have the power to bring about.  They've already shown a willingness to play the economic nuclear option card as they did during the manufactured debt ceiling crisis.  Are they prepared to destroy the country to prevent Obama's reelection? Sadly, this seems more and more likely.

For years we've all watched them as they went full retard.  They keep squealing about putting their party before the country and then unashamedly projected their failings onto the Democrats, who were trying their best to keep the country working.  The Republican Party is a collection of backwards ->-bleeped-<-s, snakebite evangelists, high flying financiers, and your basic con artists who follow slogans that were only designed to fark them over, and it is still continuing.  And there is no rhyme or reason to their party.

But I think it's even worse than that for them, because the nation really doesn't need them at all anymore - particularly the way they are pretending to  The Republican Party has collapsed, and we are seeing them try to play their 'but there needs to be TWO parties' BS one last time so those in power can land in cushy jobs before we get a few decades of Democratic rule that will only begin to resolve these issues.

So what do they do?  Straighen up and fly right?  Nah, they double down on stupid.  They think they need to be more hardline in their conservatism. The reason the baby is still crying is because you haven't shaken him hard enough.  And that's not even enough, you've got to get a few slaps in there, too.   

The political trend in Australia from the parties is to stop compulsory voting. They hate it. It means they have to spend money and convince people to vote for them.  The Australian public are funny, many think that compulsory voting is wrong and denies freedom. You DON'T have to vote in Australia. You have to register that you voted. No one gives a cent if you throw the paper in the bin, spoil it or vote for your pet dog. None of those are illegal. You can register to vote scrunch up the papers and drop them in the bin in front of the voting officials. It is your right to do so. But political parties hate the donkey vote. They also hate that if a group/party reach a certain level of votes they ARE represented in parliament, usually in the upper house. Although we do have independents controlling our lower house at the moment. These independents sell their souls for legislation they believe in, some of them have souls to sell. Most end up wanting power with it's fleeting glory and disappear into the abyss. We also have a system that if your party reaches X% of the vote then the electoral commission has to give you a certain amount of money to continue. The major parties hate that as well. But it means minor parties can exist. Most are rubbish, but some are not. I think that is good for Democracy. Major parties have no interest in Democracy in their own country (IMO). They want them in countries they cannot control. Is this paranoia? Probably.

Can the Parties change this in Australia? Yes. But not easily, they have to have a referendum on it. They have a have a snowballs chance in hell to change it. We couldn't even agree to be a Republic. To allow a Political party to rule supreme? No way, thank Goddess


Cindy

Quote from: Guantanamera on December 10, 2011, 08:45:56 PM
Since I don't know how to start a poll, I figured that a simple thread would work.

I know that trans people are pretty much poverty stricken as a group, and a pretty small minority; both of which are types of groups that generally tend not to vote.

So, who here tends to vote? (and if you don't mind to share, how do you typically vote?)

???Really Dear you know for a fact that trans people are pretty much poverty stricken as a group.... do you have some research to back that view up. I am not poverty stricken nor as a group name those with a backbone, don't see myself as a member in a small minority

Quote from: Guest 1 on February 13, 2012, 07:37:37 PM
???Really Dear you know for a fact that trans people are pretty much poverty stricken as a group.... do you have some research to back that view up. I am not poverty stricken nor as a group name those with a backbone, don't see myself as a member in a small minority

I'm inarticulate because I'm touchy tonight but my god. Without going on a research binge I can still safely say that minority and marginalized groups tend to have lower incomes. I think Guantanamera's statement was less careless than it looks.

Also your grammar is odd so I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm pretty disgustingly poverty stricken, probably have inbred family, didn't finish middle school, and I have plenty of backbone. I work hard and I always have.

And Guest 1 if you are trans you are a member of a minority group whether you like it or not. It's just numbers and not a judgement.

Quote from: tekla on February 12, 2012, 02:57:20 PM
Nah, I don't think they will ever make voting mandatory, too much at risk - too many people who don't vote now because they think it makes no difference, and that suits the power structure just fine.  The actual trend is in the exact opposite direction which sees ongoing voter suppression efforts in many states.

What I see is that for the past three years republicans have been doing nothing but preventing Obama from pursuing the Democratic agenda. Maybe that's fine, it's within their rights and they can argue that keeping Democratic programs from going forward is in itself an accomplishment, but I don't think so.  They literally have nothing to showcase in terms of what they've achieved since 2009. Their programs consist of three word slogans -- Taxed Enough Already, Drill, Baby, Drill--with nothing substantive to show for them and plenty of examples of the counterproductive effects of their intransigence (i.e., loss of the AAA credit rating from S&P) and a series of frivolous and symbolic wastes of time and money in Congress.

So on one level the Republicans are directionless and they have nothing to offer the country.  Their legitimate candidates--Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Gary Johnson, Rudy Giuliani, Jon Huntsman--have either studiously avoided the nomination process or have already been ignominiously rejected. The fact that they would even consider "candidates" like Donald Trump and Herman Cain shows how intellectually bereft they have become. It's scary because, as the republicans marginalize themselves, the country heads more and more towards one party rule.  At this point the only way the republicans can win in November is through scare tactics, veiled appeals to racism and misogyny, and an economic downturn which they actually have the power to bring about.  They've already shown a willingness to play the economic nuclear option card as they did during the manufactured debt ceiling crisis.  Are they prepared to destroy the country to prevent Obama's reelection? Sadly, this seems more and more likely.

For years we've all watched them as they went full retard.  They keep squealing about putting their party before the country and then unashamedly projected their failings onto the Democrats, who were trying their best to keep the country working.  The Republican Party is a collection of backwards ->-bleeped-<-s, snakebite evangelists, high flying financiers, and your basic con artists who follow slogans that were only designed to fark them over, and it is still continuing.  And there is no rhyme or reason to their party.

But I think it's even worse than that for them, because the nation really doesn't need them at all anymore - particularly the way they are pretending to  The Republican Party has collapsed, and we are seeing them try to play their 'but there needs to be TWO parties' BS one last time so those in power can land in cushy jobs before we get a few decades of Democratic rule that will only begin to resolve these issues.

So what do they do?  Straighen up and fly right?  Nah, they double down on stupid.  They think they need to be more hardline in their conservatism. The reason the baby is still crying is because you haven't shaken him hard enough.  And that's not even enough, you've got to get a few slaps in there, too.

Wow, quite a rant, tekla!

The Republican Party is becoming quite a bit more inclusive than their opponents want to admit.  That they are willing to field candidates as diverse as Herman Cain, or Michelle Bachman, or Donald Trump, speaks to a degree of open-mindedness that has seemingly left the Democrats.  Of course, those candidates must make it through the political winnowing process. All but one will fall by the wayside.

What I see is that for the past three years republicans have been doing nothing but preventing Obama from pursuing the Democratic agenda.

For the first two years of the Obama administration, the Republicans had little power to stop anything.  What stopped Obama's radical agenda was it's sheer audacity and the fear it caused mainstream Americans.  The Tea Party movement was an outgrowth of that fear and an expression of the distrust the public has for leftist politics.  The successful candidates who ran in agreement with the Tea Party principles of smaller, less invasive government, now have an obligation to stop Obama at every opportunity.

By the election of 2014, I'd like to see more inroads into the GLBT community as part of the "Big Tent."

You need to convince your own people of that.  To date only one primary/caucuses has enjoyed larger numbers than then last time everyone did this dance.  That - with an open ticket, with a 'feared socialist/Marxist/radical (Harvard trained lawer)' to oppose, hell I bet the Republicans hate on Obama more than both Clintons together, X2 - yet... state, after state, after state, after state, after state has fewer people voting Republican.

And good luck with that big tent deal, the rhetoric (and I'll remind you that its' not even ginned up yet) seems intent on forcing everyone else out.  It's anti-black, anti-Hispanic (which, BTW I've never got outside of pure, straight-up racism, because that's just about the most conservative/family values focused group around, they would be natural Republicans if it wasn't for, well, the other Republicans), anti-gay, anti-union, anti-women - anti-pretty much everyone except old rich white people and openly racist people.

So, do you think it's going to be Rick (R-Frothy, I'm really running for 2016) or Michelle (R-Crazytown, she who is going to be needing a job soon, or else she's a liar and is going to run for re-election anyway - you know that 'term limit' thing, that's just for people we don't like) that's going to give the big Republican LGBT welcoming speech?  Have Herm deliver some pizzas too.  At least the gays will be safe from being sexually molested when he's around, he's the rare Republican that cheats with people of the opposite sex.

I think what is really bothering me about the current GOP is the practical glee they have been partaking in as American companies with American jobs fail. They practically had an orgasm over Solyndra going down because it hurt Obama, ignoring that American companies and workers in the solar energy field are the ones losing jobs to our foreign competitors who have no problem investing in businesses that help their own countrymen.  (China's rate of investment in solar power is 4X what our is, for one example)

You can argue all you want about the level of involvement of government in the US economy, and there are valid arguments on both sides of intervention vs. nonintervention, but to dance on the graves of Americans' jobs is rather disgusting.  I know they don't give a damn about people, but it's customary to at least pretend to when you want them to vote for you.

And good luck with that big tent deal, the rhetoric (and I'll remind you that its' not even ginned up yet) seems intent on forcing everyone else out.  It's anti-black, anti-Hispanic (which, BTW I've never got outside of pure, straight-up racism, because that's just about the most conservative/family values focused group around, they would be natural Republicans if it wasn't for, well, the other Republicans), anti-gay, anti-union, anti-women - anti-pretty much everyone except old rich white people and openly racist people.

Pure hooey.