Agent Monkeysee on 8/11/2006 at 17:02
This is the first election where everything I voted for won and everything I voted against lost :cool: Here's hoping we take the Senate too.
Quote Posted by Dr Sneak
I will never vote for a Redtardion or Democrap again when there are 3rd party alternatives available.
Clearly you're intent on raising the level of political discourse. How noble of you.
aguywhoplaysthief on 8/11/2006 at 17:04
Further representin' the vote wasters.
Quote:
Now if only the Libertarian party actually followed its ideals to any further degree than "git yer mits off mah moneys!".
What are you talking about? The libertarian party is rather clear on issues of foreign affairs, and on most "social issues".
And, typically, California disagrees with me on most ballot propositions.
$43 billion in new bonds for California! Yipee!
Turtle on 8/11/2006 at 17:05
Quote Posted by Dr Sneak
I will never vote for a Redtardion or Democrap again when there are 3rd party alternatives available.
I respect your idealism, but it seems sadly misplaced in an election where the current policy makers have proven to be inept and/or corrupt and the races are very close.
If it were a situation where one side was clearly going to win, I would have voted a third party candidate, too.
The more votes they get, the more likely they are to be taken seriously by voters and the media.
But these were close races in general and all you did was show that you don't really care who wins.
heretic on 8/11/2006 at 17:25
You never waste a vote by voting for someone who best represents your views.
You waste a vote by voting for the monkey in the suit you like who is nearly identical to the monkey in a suit you don't like in all things but hyperbole.
This voting along party lines for the moderates who 'appeal most broadly' is what has caused the democrats and the republicans to quit representing their core constituents.
'Nother third party hack here, I'm also done with "More of the same please."
Stitch on 8/11/2006 at 17:30
Quote Posted by Paz
But really - America, your elections confuse the hell out of me. Places where Democrats were winning were also banning/outlawing/messing around with gay marriage laws.
Yeah, welcome to Wisconsin. We voted in Democrats all around, and yet we also pushed through anti-gay marriage and pro-death penalty legislation. We've had a bit of a bittersweet victory here.
But hey! Those afraid of the scary gays are mostly prejudiced geriatrics, and they won't live forever. This race is a marathon, not a sprint, and the winner was already determined back when gays were given the right to adopt. Full gay rights are just a matter of time.
As for the House (and possibly the Senate) I'm still giddy at the thought of finally having a system of checks and balances back in place to curb Bush's destructive agenda, but the Democrats have a huge challenge ahead of them as they didn't win so much as stand still while the Republicans failed. To move this country forward, the Democrats need to get disciplined and actually put together a plan of action. It's time for a little backbone, fellas, and merely pointing out that you're not a Republican ain't going to be enough.
Rug Burn Junky on 8/11/2006 at 17:42
Quote:
This voting along party lines for the moderates who 'appeal most broadly' is what has caused the democrats and the republicans to quit representing their core constituents.
Have you even been fucking paying attention for the past six to twelve years? Where are these moderate republicans-who-appeal-most-broadly in the federal electorate?
You give up the right to criticize "More of the same please"
when you don't even know what "the same" is. Your opinion is meaningless if it fails to reflect reality.
The fact is, whether your third party vote is idealistic and naive or a principled vote with long term goals, third party voting
is an absolute waste when what is at stake is having continued one party rule or not.
Cute little soundbites about "the lesser of two evils always equals evil, hurrrrrrrr" are not only ridiculously simplistic, but miss the fucking point. There are reasonably fundamental differences between the two parties. But even more important than that, allowing one party to control ALL of the basic governmental safeguards is more fundamentally against your interests than having dispersed power amongst two parties,
even if you agree with neither party. Fuck, it's probably against your interest even if you agree with the one party in charge.
fett on 8/11/2006 at 18:15
Breaking News: Rumsfeld is resigning. No fucking joke. What a great day.
Now I must go change pants for I have ejaculated profoundly in my current ones.
demagogue on 8/11/2006 at 18:21
Third parties can have a use in the US 2-party system, but you'd have to think strategically about it if you have any hope that your vote is anything but irrelevant. They have punch when it's in a tight race, a third party candidate offers a credible threat to one of the major parties to coopt the ground the third party covers, not because they expect the party could win, but because they fear it could split the vote enough to let the other guy lose (the Ross Perot threat)... so it forces the closest party to give even more in that direction in advance to "loose the least".
So third parties can serve a sort of signally function to the major parties about what issues/interests are not being covered enough to force people to commit political suicide with their vote (although all of this happens mostly behind the scenes, I think.) And as the electorate becomes more independent (like 20+% of the electorate (?), at least in 1992 when I studied the statistics, aren't comfortable saying they are really Rep or Democrat), catering to the independents is becoming important, so this sort of thing isn't the most stupid thing you could do in the right circumstances. But it's still so rare that at this point that it's only mostly practically useless.
By the way, I go back and forth on whether the US would be better with a Parliament system like the UK. On the one hand, we get the rush of practically supporting the 'little guy' issue and actually giving it some power, but on the other, too often the 'little guy' gets a big head and starts getting grabby, especially during coalition-building time and ends up mucking up more than I feel happy giving him latitude for, since he is after all by definition a minority position (the religious parties in Israel come to mind; I think such a system would be a ticket mostly to strong religious parties in the US before anything else, and maybe the Greens.) So at the end of the day I'm happier with what we've got.
--------------------
Re: the Democrat victory, what are we talking about the most important impacts? I was reading the front-burner issue was immigration (Iraq is sort of it's own quagmire I'm not sure anything is speeding up pull-out as a practical matter, but hard to tell.) ... so now we're scaling back the anti-immigration measures pushed for in the recent past, easing somewhat the integration of Latin Americans into the economy. Right? I'm not sure tax policy will change soo much; it will change but not by much. What else is the practical fall-out here?
Edit: Re - Rumsfeld, if true, I have sort of a feeling of *too little, too late*, now that his adventuring days were over anyway. But it sends the right message. It's good news. Too bad I don't think it will have much affect on our policy in Iraq as I was guessing above. But we'll see.
Stitch on 8/11/2006 at 18:32
HOLY SHIT NOW RUMSFELD IS OUT
totally spurting
edit: haha I'm FETTALICIOUS today
SD on 8/11/2006 at 18:36
Will Rumsfeld's sacking make any difference at all?
I can imagine the Republicans are briefing the media as we speak: "Yeah, no, really, the mess in Iraq is all Donald Rumsfeld's fault", as if he was doing anything other than carrying out a plan of action prescribed by Bush, Cheney and Rove.
From here, it just looks like one puppet has had his strings cut, but the puppeteers are sitting pretty.
