Remove Ad, Sign Up
Register to Remove Ad
Register to Remove Ad
Remove Ad, Sign Up
Register to Remove Ad
Register to Remove Ad
Signup for Free!
-More Features-
-Far Less Ads-
About   Users   Help
Users & Guests Online
On Page: 1
Directory: 1 & 135
Entire Site: 9 & 1000
Page Staff: pennylessz, pokemon x, Barathemos, tgags123, alexanyways, RavusRat,
03-28-24 01:06 PM

Forum Links

The State of Democracy in the US
The thoughts of a Swede with an interest in American Politics
Related Threads
Coming Soon

Thread Information

Views
1,547
Replies
18
Rating
4
Status
CLOSED
Thread
Creator
Zlinqx
11-08-16 02:27 PM
Last
Post
Pokemonfan1000
11-19-16 10:37 PM
Additional Thread Details
Views: 775
Today: 2
Users: 50 unique
Last User View
05-20-17
mikedavike28

Thread Actions

Thread Closed
New Thread
New Poll
Order
 

The State of Democracy in the US

 

11-08-16 02:27 PM
Zlinqx is Offline
| ID: 1312908 | 914 Words

Zlinqx
Zlinqx
Level: 121


POSTS: 3711/4673
POST EXP: 657361
LVL EXP: 19955982
CP: 52722.7
VIZ: 617684

Likes: 3  Dislikes: 0

In the light of the soon ending 2016 US election there are some points I thought would be interesting to bring up for discussion. As a non American who talk to a lot of Americans on a daily basis and has perhaps an unhealthy interest in American politics despite not having any direct influence, I want to talk about the US electoral process today.

The US Election System is flawed

The US in many respects today is pretty much a two party system. While candidates outside of the Republican and Democrat party do indeed exist they have practically no chance of winning. One can see the effects of this as with candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump himself running through the way of the Democrat and Republican Primaries. What both of these people had in common before this election cycle started was that none of them actually aligned with the Democrat or Republican party respectively but rather chose to do so because they know it is the only way to have a real shot at the presidency. This illustrates a key issue with the way the US is set up today, where those intent on running for president are pretty much forced to go through these parties. While one could argue that this isn't as big of a problem as I'm making it out to be as anyone can still become a member of these parties the problem lies in how this limits the choice of the American people. It always boils down to two candidates and this is further influenced by superdelegates. Sure 3rd parties exist but due to these getting nowhere near as much media coverage many people don't consider them an option or flat out don't even know they exist. This is contributed to further by lack of financial support for the other parties meaning they often times don't really have the money to travel around and campaign in every single state the way the Republican and Democrat party can. A fault may lie here in terms of the behavior of mainstream media or even people themselves for not being more informed but a democracy should also be encouraging such behavior.  

Consider then the structure of the entire election process and the electoral college and this makes 3rd parties obsolete. It seems by design the system is set up to favor having just these two parties. The US is one of a few western democracies that does not have a representative democracy in stead having a sort of "majority takes it all" approach in each state. This creates two problems. The first is that a very large percentage of people are not at all accounted for. In particular those who live in swing states where almost half the population end up having no influence on the results. This is counter to how most representative democracies work where the government is elected by proportionally represented officials. This turns all of this into an evil cycle. Why vote for a lesser party when you know that they're not going to win your state, thereby having no influence at all in how the country is run. It in practice turns into a wasted vote. That is without considering the fact that many states makes it even harder for one to vote for a 3rd party candidate, a problem with leaving what is a NATIONAL election on the federal level in stead of standardizing it.

In stead it becomes this logic of voting for the lesser of two evils. This has never been made more clear than in the current election as while both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton do have loyal support bases they're also two of the most hated mainstream candidates to date judging by polls such as this. More people vote out of a hatred for the other candidate than because they like the candidate they're voting for. Keep in mind that this is also only taking into account people who are voting for one candidate and not those who in stead decide not to vote at all because they may strongly dislike both or various other reasons. Which one could assume is a very large group judging by the low voter turnout the US has had for the presidential election and will likely continue to have. In many cases this means that one doesn't actually believe that the candidate they're voting for will be a good leader. These are two people who would in truth likely not be able to become president were the US democracy not set up the way it presently is. What this does is signify a country not ultimately run by the people, but rather that US politics in many ways does not reflect those of a democracy.

To be clear I am not saying changing the election system would immediately eliminate any problems related to this, after all the presidents also has less power than they're often made out to have. Like I said, I'm also a Swede so Americans who are well versed in politics probably have a better idea of the reality of the situation than me. This thread is just me offering my thoughts and hopefully we can get a discussion going. I do think it a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed before one goes on to discuss the many political issues that currently plagues the country. In stead of just being brushed aside as "just the way things are".

In the light of the soon ending 2016 US election there are some points I thought would be interesting to bring up for discussion. As a non American who talk to a lot of Americans on a daily basis and has perhaps an unhealthy interest in American politics despite not having any direct influence, I want to talk about the US electoral process today.

The US Election System is flawed

The US in many respects today is pretty much a two party system. While candidates outside of the Republican and Democrat party do indeed exist they have practically no chance of winning. One can see the effects of this as with candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump himself running through the way of the Democrat and Republican Primaries. What both of these people had in common before this election cycle started was that none of them actually aligned with the Democrat or Republican party respectively but rather chose to do so because they know it is the only way to have a real shot at the presidency. This illustrates a key issue with the way the US is set up today, where those intent on running for president are pretty much forced to go through these parties. While one could argue that this isn't as big of a problem as I'm making it out to be as anyone can still become a member of these parties the problem lies in how this limits the choice of the American people. It always boils down to two candidates and this is further influenced by superdelegates. Sure 3rd parties exist but due to these getting nowhere near as much media coverage many people don't consider them an option or flat out don't even know they exist. This is contributed to further by lack of financial support for the other parties meaning they often times don't really have the money to travel around and campaign in every single state the way the Republican and Democrat party can. A fault may lie here in terms of the behavior of mainstream media or even people themselves for not being more informed but a democracy should also be encouraging such behavior.  

Consider then the structure of the entire election process and the electoral college and this makes 3rd parties obsolete. It seems by design the system is set up to favor having just these two parties. The US is one of a few western democracies that does not have a representative democracy in stead having a sort of "majority takes it all" approach in each state. This creates two problems. The first is that a very large percentage of people are not at all accounted for. In particular those who live in swing states where almost half the population end up having no influence on the results. This is counter to how most representative democracies work where the government is elected by proportionally represented officials. This turns all of this into an evil cycle. Why vote for a lesser party when you know that they're not going to win your state, thereby having no influence at all in how the country is run. It in practice turns into a wasted vote. That is without considering the fact that many states makes it even harder for one to vote for a 3rd party candidate, a problem with leaving what is a NATIONAL election on the federal level in stead of standardizing it.

In stead it becomes this logic of voting for the lesser of two evils. This has never been made more clear than in the current election as while both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton do have loyal support bases they're also two of the most hated mainstream candidates to date judging by polls such as this. More people vote out of a hatred for the other candidate than because they like the candidate they're voting for. Keep in mind that this is also only taking into account people who are voting for one candidate and not those who in stead decide not to vote at all because they may strongly dislike both or various other reasons. Which one could assume is a very large group judging by the low voter turnout the US has had for the presidential election and will likely continue to have. In many cases this means that one doesn't actually believe that the candidate they're voting for will be a good leader. These are two people who would in truth likely not be able to become president were the US democracy not set up the way it presently is. What this does is signify a country not ultimately run by the people, but rather that US politics in many ways does not reflect those of a democracy.

To be clear I am not saying changing the election system would immediately eliminate any problems related to this, after all the presidents also has less power than they're often made out to have. Like I said, I'm also a Swede so Americans who are well versed in politics probably have a better idea of the reality of the situation than me. This thread is just me offering my thoughts and hopefully we can get a discussion going. I do think it a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed before one goes on to discuss the many political issues that currently plagues the country. In stead of just being brushed aside as "just the way things are".
Vizzed Elite

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 07-21-13
Last Post: 136 days
Last Active: 2 days

(edited by Zlinqx on 11-08-16 05:54 PM)     Post Rating: 3   Liked By: Postman3, Spicy, Uzar,

11-08-16 05:44 PM
Mynamescox44 is Offline
| ID: 1312981 | 521 Words

Mynamescox44
Level: 95


POSTS: 2218/2608
POST EXP: 337383
LVL EXP: 8567053
CP: 48499.4
VIZ: 571857

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
You're absolutely right. Our system is more or less a joke. For whatever reason, people seem to think that a system developed 200+ years ago has a solid foundation in modern society just because the "Founding Fathers" were the ones who came up with it.

I have nothing against the founding members of my country, in fact I respect all that they managed to accomplish, but their system was designed for a time where things were substantially different than they are now. The whole point of the Electoral College was because they didn't believe the masses were smart enough to choose for themselves, so they set it up where a representative would cast a vote for a candidate on their behalf, depending on the results.

And who might be a part of this Electoral College representing us? Well, it's generally people that either were politicians previously, or people with very close ties to politicians, such as a rich cousin of someone in Congress / Senate. Not to mention that they are literally allowed to vote for whomever they decide is best, regardless of the people's votes, and are allowed to keep themselves completely anonymous on top of that. Doesn't really give the people much say in who's chosen if you ask me. In fact, one College member who had a drinking problem cast a vote for someone named "John Ewards" at one point, intended for John Edwards, and since it was mispelled the vote didn't count for anyone, let alone his intended candidate (that may be the wrong politician, but you get the point. this really happened).

And Zlinqx already explained perfectly the flaws with our Winner Take All system, and how it makes nearly half the votes in any given swing state completely meaningless. And how our "Points per State" system is, a candidate really only has to campaign to places like Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and any other big points states, and can more or less ignore the rest of the country in their campaigns because of how valuable those states are in deciding the results.

I don't understand how the Primaries work all that well, but it's obviously unfair with how much influence the "Super Delegates" have. Bernie never had a chance with how much backing Hillary had in the party, which completely negates to a large degree what the people might have wanted, if I understand what happened correctly.

So much of our Electoral System needs reformed, it's hard to say where we should even start. All I know is something needs to be done about it and soon. If we keep ending up with choices like the one we're dealing with now, this country will slowly spiral down into being a complete s***hole. It saddens me that so many people in this country think that the only solution is "the lesser of two evils," when in fact there's at least 25+ qualified people who want to be President every 4 years, and we think it's logical to whittle it down to only 2 choices to pick from and those two choices have to be hard-left or hard-right...
You're absolutely right. Our system is more or less a joke. For whatever reason, people seem to think that a system developed 200+ years ago has a solid foundation in modern society just because the "Founding Fathers" were the ones who came up with it.

I have nothing against the founding members of my country, in fact I respect all that they managed to accomplish, but their system was designed for a time where things were substantially different than they are now. The whole point of the Electoral College was because they didn't believe the masses were smart enough to choose for themselves, so they set it up where a representative would cast a vote for a candidate on their behalf, depending on the results.

And who might be a part of this Electoral College representing us? Well, it's generally people that either were politicians previously, or people with very close ties to politicians, such as a rich cousin of someone in Congress / Senate. Not to mention that they are literally allowed to vote for whomever they decide is best, regardless of the people's votes, and are allowed to keep themselves completely anonymous on top of that. Doesn't really give the people much say in who's chosen if you ask me. In fact, one College member who had a drinking problem cast a vote for someone named "John Ewards" at one point, intended for John Edwards, and since it was mispelled the vote didn't count for anyone, let alone his intended candidate (that may be the wrong politician, but you get the point. this really happened).

And Zlinqx already explained perfectly the flaws with our Winner Take All system, and how it makes nearly half the votes in any given swing state completely meaningless. And how our "Points per State" system is, a candidate really only has to campaign to places like Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and any other big points states, and can more or less ignore the rest of the country in their campaigns because of how valuable those states are in deciding the results.

I don't understand how the Primaries work all that well, but it's obviously unfair with how much influence the "Super Delegates" have. Bernie never had a chance with how much backing Hillary had in the party, which completely negates to a large degree what the people might have wanted, if I understand what happened correctly.

So much of our Electoral System needs reformed, it's hard to say where we should even start. All I know is something needs to be done about it and soon. If we keep ending up with choices like the one we're dealing with now, this country will slowly spiral down into being a complete s***hole. It saddens me that so many people in this country think that the only solution is "the lesser of two evils," when in fact there's at least 25+ qualified people who want to be President every 4 years, and we think it's logical to whittle it down to only 2 choices to pick from and those two choices have to be hard-left or hard-right...
Trusted Member
Universe Breaker


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 11-28-12
Location: Ohio
Last Post: 1631 days
Last Active: 638 days

11-08-16 08:48 PM
Pokemonfan1000 is Offline
| ID: 1313012 | 44 Words

Pokemonfan1000
Level: 58


POSTS: 149/957
POST EXP: 48442
LVL EXP: 1542868
CP: 2097.1
VIZ: 2100

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Zlinqx : Third parties shouldn't exist anymore. I think the only "THIRD PARTY" we need is the independent category so meaning undecided party people get lumped in there but will have to chose a first party (Democrat or Republican) before their presidential campaigns can begin.
Zlinqx : Third parties shouldn't exist anymore. I think the only "THIRD PARTY" we need is the independent category so meaning undecided party people get lumped in there but will have to chose a first party (Democrat or Republican) before their presidential campaigns can begin.
Perma Banned
The only user so far in the 309 and 563 area codes currently active on any acmlm based board (save for smwcentral.net and Lespna1) If you want to dispute this claim, feel free to PM me.


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 10-20-16
Location: Quad Cities
Last Post: 2466 days
Last Active: 2466 days

11-09-16 12:15 AM
Pringur0 is Offline
| ID: 1313063 | 25 Words

Pringur0
Juliaisme123
Level: 54


POSTS: 585/721
POST EXP: 23577
LVL EXP: 1189738
CP: 14919.7
VIZ: 497938

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
I feel as if Democracy just died tonight anyway since Trump won. It feels insane that a lunatic like him was somehow able to win.
I feel as if Democracy just died tonight anyway since Trump won. It feels insane that a lunatic like him was somehow able to win.
Vizzed Elite

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 11-24-13
Last Post: 1825 days
Last Active: 57 days

11-09-16 12:22 AM
Mynamescox44 is Offline
| ID: 1313064 | 179 Words

Mynamescox44
Level: 95


POSTS: 2221/2608
POST EXP: 337383
LVL EXP: 8567053
CP: 48499.4
VIZ: 571857

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Pokemonfan1000 :  
What do you mean? That's exactly how things are now.

Bernie wasn't technically a "Democratic" candidate, but that was his only chance of winning, so that's who he went with. And if you remember, the last time Trump said he was running, he was doing so as an Independent (or at least planned to / said he would). 

If anything 3rd Party candidates need to be considered more seriously. A huge chunk of this country isn't hard-left or hard-right, but somewhere in the middle. I'm much more Liberal than Conservative, but at the same time there are plenty of policies I disagree with in the Democratic Party.

And if by some miracle a 3rd Party candidate was the President or had more place in our government, there possibly wouldn't be nearly as much bickering between the two parties. If they spent half the effort they invest into trying to tear down each other into actually serving the people like they are meant to, this country could actually be the "Land of Opportunity" it's made out to be.
Pokemonfan1000 :  
What do you mean? That's exactly how things are now.

Bernie wasn't technically a "Democratic" candidate, but that was his only chance of winning, so that's who he went with. And if you remember, the last time Trump said he was running, he was doing so as an Independent (or at least planned to / said he would). 

If anything 3rd Party candidates need to be considered more seriously. A huge chunk of this country isn't hard-left or hard-right, but somewhere in the middle. I'm much more Liberal than Conservative, but at the same time there are plenty of policies I disagree with in the Democratic Party.

And if by some miracle a 3rd Party candidate was the President or had more place in our government, there possibly wouldn't be nearly as much bickering between the two parties. If they spent half the effort they invest into trying to tear down each other into actually serving the people like they are meant to, this country could actually be the "Land of Opportunity" it's made out to be.
Trusted Member
Universe Breaker


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 11-28-12
Location: Ohio
Last Post: 1631 days
Last Active: 638 days

11-09-16 08:46 AM
Uzar is Offline
| ID: 1313107 | 297 Words

Uzar
A user of this
Level: 139


POSTS: 5317/6433
POST EXP: 345123
LVL EXP: 32432036
CP: 25933.5
VIZ: 555693

Likes: 1  Dislikes: 0
We have a silly election system. I mean, in a way, I can see what they were going for, but it is still kind of dumb. But to anybody who thinks that individual votes don't matter,  that couldn't be farther from the truth. I think our electorate system would have worked better if we not only kept this, but also our founding fathers's wishes to have a partyless system.

Having these big ticket states sucks now. Who decides that Pennsylvania and Florida hold more value than, say, Iowa or New York?

Pokemonfan1000 : We need not only third parties, but we also need third parties that actually STAND FOR SOMETHING. Agree or disagree, Republicians and Democrats have beliefs and stand for them. Independents just go "both of them suck let's just do a little bit of both". But when actually asked about what they believe, you're not going to get an answer. We need more parties like the Green Party or...Anything that actually stands for something.

Mynamescox44 : As this election proved, media is dishonest, and doesn't really reflect the views of the vast majority of the people here. But I think that the only real chance a 3rd party candidate has in winning an election is with a lot of media coverage. People need to know who these people are, they need to do some serious campaign work. Maybe if every news outlet wasn't dogpiling Trump every time he so much as breathed into a microphone; and instead actually spent time giving 3rd parties the chance that they are entitled to by all means; we may be celebrating a President Johnson, or a President Stein this morning.
The common phrase this election was "choose the lesser of evils". But were they the only options we had? Absolutely not.
We have a silly election system. I mean, in a way, I can see what they were going for, but it is still kind of dumb. But to anybody who thinks that individual votes don't matter,  that couldn't be farther from the truth. I think our electorate system would have worked better if we not only kept this, but also our founding fathers's wishes to have a partyless system.

Having these big ticket states sucks now. Who decides that Pennsylvania and Florida hold more value than, say, Iowa or New York?

Pokemonfan1000 : We need not only third parties, but we also need third parties that actually STAND FOR SOMETHING. Agree or disagree, Republicians and Democrats have beliefs and stand for them. Independents just go "both of them suck let's just do a little bit of both". But when actually asked about what they believe, you're not going to get an answer. We need more parties like the Green Party or...Anything that actually stands for something.

Mynamescox44 : As this election proved, media is dishonest, and doesn't really reflect the views of the vast majority of the people here. But I think that the only real chance a 3rd party candidate has in winning an election is with a lot of media coverage. People need to know who these people are, they need to do some serious campaign work. Maybe if every news outlet wasn't dogpiling Trump every time he so much as breathed into a microphone; and instead actually spent time giving 3rd parties the chance that they are entitled to by all means; we may be celebrating a President Johnson, or a President Stein this morning.
The common phrase this election was "choose the lesser of evils". But were they the only options we had? Absolutely not.
Vizzed Elite
I wonder what the character limit on this thing is.


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 06-03-13
Location: Airship Bostonius
Last Post: 1878 days
Last Active: 1849 days

Post Rating: 1   Liked By: Postman3,

11-09-16 09:10 AM
Pokemonfan1000 is Offline
| ID: 1313109 | 9 Words

Pokemonfan1000
Level: 58


POSTS: 186/957
POST EXP: 48442
LVL EXP: 1542868
CP: 2097.1
VIZ: 2100

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Mynamescox44 : I mean eliminate the green and libertarian party.
Mynamescox44 : I mean eliminate the green and libertarian party.
Perma Banned
The only user so far in the 309 and 563 area codes currently active on any acmlm based board (save for smwcentral.net and Lespna1) If you want to dispute this claim, feel free to PM me.


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 10-20-16
Location: Quad Cities
Last Post: 2466 days
Last Active: 2466 days

11-09-16 09:28 AM
zanderlex is Offline
| ID: 1313112 | 77 Words

zanderlex
dark mode
Level: 263


POSTS: 21995/28312
POST EXP: 1930095
LVL EXP: 295077982
CP: 156510.0
VIZ: 12361557

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
*cough cough* I'm outside of the two party system and there's indeed a lot more than you think.

Even though it's flawed, I'd say it's more some of the people's fault than the system or anything. Most people literally just go along with what they like to hear but never bother to look into things on their own, and if people did this they could see what's wrong and try to fix it or make better decisions
*cough cough* I'm outside of the two party system and there's indeed a lot more than you think.

Even though it's flawed, I'd say it's more some of the people's fault than the system or anything. Most people literally just go along with what they like to hear but never bother to look into things on their own, and if people did this they could see what's wrong and try to fix it or make better decisions
Vizzed Elite
Sergei's Mustache


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 09-25-13
Location: Inaba
Last Post: 72 days
Last Active: 4 days

11-09-16 09:31 AM
Zlinqx is Offline
| ID: 1313115 | 390 Words

Zlinqx
Zlinqx
Level: 121


POSTS: 3713/4673
POST EXP: 657361
LVL EXP: 19955982
CP: 52722.7
VIZ: 617684

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Mynamescox44 : Good thing you pointed out super delegates. I actually was aware of that since I followed the Democrat Primaries pretty closely but forgot to bring it up in this thread. I do think their positions would've been more prone to change if the majority of people voted for Bernie. What is worrying regardless, is the fact that so much of the US democracy today also hinges on officials "doing the right thing" that is actually voting based on the opinion of the people. Like in the case with the Electoral College. Having them essentially need to approve the votes of the people, is not only insulting to voters but adds another barrier that unnecessarily complicates the election system and even from a functional viewpoint just doesn't make sense.

A user of this : I think it would be better if you followed the model of most modern democracies, in stead of basing it on what most of the people in a state think by giving each state a certain number of seats. It excludes many people by design. Really that shouldn't be factored in what is a national election every vote should be counted equally and the results proportional to the percentage people of voting for said party out of the entire US population. That seems to me like the most fair and least complicated way to handle it. Aside from that election on a national level needs to be standardized in my opinion to make sure that those who aren't part of the democratic and republican party are also presented as options properly. In stead of handling it the way many states do now where you more or less can't vote for a 3rd party.

I also think the problem is how the entire campaigning for the election system work. The fact that the candidates go to every single state before the election is held means that 3rd party candidates really won't have the same opportunity as these two unless the campaign system is changed or these parties get financial aid from the government (unless they're backed by a corporation or rich individual). Opting for the second would then bring up the problem of who should qualify for such support. Not having parties at all though would severely complicate things for the government looking past the title of presidency.
Mynamescox44 : Good thing you pointed out super delegates. I actually was aware of that since I followed the Democrat Primaries pretty closely but forgot to bring it up in this thread. I do think their positions would've been more prone to change if the majority of people voted for Bernie. What is worrying regardless, is the fact that so much of the US democracy today also hinges on officials "doing the right thing" that is actually voting based on the opinion of the people. Like in the case with the Electoral College. Having them essentially need to approve the votes of the people, is not only insulting to voters but adds another barrier that unnecessarily complicates the election system and even from a functional viewpoint just doesn't make sense.

A user of this : I think it would be better if you followed the model of most modern democracies, in stead of basing it on what most of the people in a state think by giving each state a certain number of seats. It excludes many people by design. Really that shouldn't be factored in what is a national election every vote should be counted equally and the results proportional to the percentage people of voting for said party out of the entire US population. That seems to me like the most fair and least complicated way to handle it. Aside from that election on a national level needs to be standardized in my opinion to make sure that those who aren't part of the democratic and republican party are also presented as options properly. In stead of handling it the way many states do now where you more or less can't vote for a 3rd party.

I also think the problem is how the entire campaigning for the election system work. The fact that the candidates go to every single state before the election is held means that 3rd party candidates really won't have the same opportunity as these two unless the campaign system is changed or these parties get financial aid from the government (unless they're backed by a corporation or rich individual). Opting for the second would then bring up the problem of who should qualify for such support. Not having parties at all though would severely complicate things for the government looking past the title of presidency.
Vizzed Elite

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 07-21-13
Last Post: 136 days
Last Active: 2 days

11-09-16 09:42 AM
geeogree is Offline
| ID: 1313127 | 72 Words

geeogree
Mr Geeohn-A-Vash53215
Level: 290


POSTS: 27762/29291
POST EXP: 1955397
LVL EXP: 420131161
CP: 52472.4
VIZ: 528573

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Is democracy in the US broken? I don't think so.

When the unlikely candidate comes from behind and beats the media pushed, political elitist that everyone just expected to win because she was a woman then I think the voice of the people was heard loud and clear.

In the end every political system is broken because the people who control it are the ones that were elected in the first place.
Is democracy in the US broken? I don't think so.

When the unlikely candidate comes from behind and beats the media pushed, political elitist that everyone just expected to win because she was a woman then I think the voice of the people was heard loud and clear.

In the end every political system is broken because the people who control it are the ones that were elected in the first place.
Vizzed Elite
Former Admin
Banzilla


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 01-03-05
Last Post: 90 days
Last Active: 15 hours

11-09-16 09:50 AM
Zlinqx is Offline
| ID: 1313133 | 171 Words

Zlinqx
Zlinqx
Level: 121


POSTS: 3716/4673
POST EXP: 657361
LVL EXP: 19955982
CP: 52722.7
VIZ: 617684

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
geeogree : The problem isn't that it's impossible for a candidate not traditionally part of these parties to become president. But rather how they're presented with many obstacles that does make it harder than it should be in stead of having a leveled playing field for anyone running for president. One should also consider that Trump is a slight exception due to having wealth which makes it much easier for him to finance a campaign than most other ex independents. It would be considerably harder for someone to win the primaries of either party not having wealth or an existing backing (like in the case of Bernie).

Aside from this having the system the way it is also severly limits the choice of the people. It's also not bringing up other points not related to the party system itself considering how many people's votes simply aren't accounted for. If the US had followed the model of other countries, Clinton would've been president not Trump because she had more total votes for her.
geeogree : The problem isn't that it's impossible for a candidate not traditionally part of these parties to become president. But rather how they're presented with many obstacles that does make it harder than it should be in stead of having a leveled playing field for anyone running for president. One should also consider that Trump is a slight exception due to having wealth which makes it much easier for him to finance a campaign than most other ex independents. It would be considerably harder for someone to win the primaries of either party not having wealth or an existing backing (like in the case of Bernie).

Aside from this having the system the way it is also severly limits the choice of the people. It's also not bringing up other points not related to the party system itself considering how many people's votes simply aren't accounted for. If the US had followed the model of other countries, Clinton would've been president not Trump because she had more total votes for her.
Vizzed Elite

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 07-21-13
Last Post: 136 days
Last Active: 2 days

11-09-16 09:53 AM
geeogree is Offline
| ID: 1313134 | 32 Words

geeogree
Mr Geeohn-A-Vash53215
Level: 290


POSTS: 27764/29291
POST EXP: 1955397
LVL EXP: 420131161
CP: 52472.4
VIZ: 528573

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Is that any less true in any other country? I couldn't run for office in my country without the backing of one of the major political parties. I wouldn't stand a chance.
Is that any less true in any other country? I couldn't run for office in my country without the backing of one of the major political parties. I wouldn't stand a chance.
Vizzed Elite
Former Admin
Banzilla


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 01-03-05
Last Post: 90 days
Last Active: 15 hours

11-09-16 09:59 AM
Zlinqx is Offline
| ID: 1313142 | 172 Words

Zlinqx
Zlinqx
Level: 121


POSTS: 3717/4673
POST EXP: 657361
LVL EXP: 19955982
CP: 52722.7
VIZ: 617684

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
geeogree : I can only speak for my own country and those with a similar political system (not to well versed in what the Canadian political system is like). Of course it wouldn't be easy for a new party to emerge but it's definitely possible if they can garner some initial support. That is much less the case in the US where the system pretty much acts as an obstacle for that happening and actually prevents these parties from gaining in support. It results in people voting for just these two parties in stead of voting for a 3rd party like the libertarian party or the green party.

These two parties would in truth have likely gotten a lot more votes this election if people knew what they both stood for and if their vote wouldn't essentially be wasted. It wouldn't be in a representative democracy as they would be able to gain influence in the way things are run regardless of whether they win or not thus the votes would actually matter.
geeogree : I can only speak for my own country and those with a similar political system (not to well versed in what the Canadian political system is like). Of course it wouldn't be easy for a new party to emerge but it's definitely possible if they can garner some initial support. That is much less the case in the US where the system pretty much acts as an obstacle for that happening and actually prevents these parties from gaining in support. It results in people voting for just these two parties in stead of voting for a 3rd party like the libertarian party or the green party.

These two parties would in truth have likely gotten a lot more votes this election if people knew what they both stood for and if their vote wouldn't essentially be wasted. It wouldn't be in a representative democracy as they would be able to gain influence in the way things are run regardless of whether they win or not thus the votes would actually matter.
Vizzed Elite

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 07-21-13
Last Post: 136 days
Last Active: 2 days

11-09-16 10:00 AM
RDay13 is Offline
| ID: 1313144 | 407 Words

RDay13
RDunce
Level: 82


POSTS: 1761/1968
POST EXP: 136549
LVL EXP: 5101033
CP: 10085.5
VIZ: 147211

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0

Zlinqx : I wanted to wait till we got the actual vote to post here. I agree with your first point about how the US election system is flawed. I think that the electoral college isn't the best for the country. You mentioned people who voted for the party that didn't win a swing state have no voice, and I totally agree. On top of that, people in historical liberal states with conservative views (and vice versa) will have their vote mean basically nothing. The whole west coast is liberal heaven and the Deep South is always conservative. This also makes it that much harder for third parties to win because so many states are already given to a party by basically default. I think the popular vote is much more accurate of the country's choice. The electoral system is rather outdated because the population today is way too big for it to still work properly. We're essentially giving more value to people in certain states because they live in a swing state and their votes matter more than people living in non-swing states. That's not right and if we went by popular vote, we would have had Al Gore as president in 2000 rather than the abomination that was the Bush administration. 

" Keep in mind that this is also only taking into account people who are voting for one candidate and not those who in stead decide not to vote at all because they may strongly dislike both or various other reasons. Which one could assume is a very large group judging by the low voter turnout the US has had for the presidential election and will likely continue to have."

I don't think that's the case at all actually. This year's election set a record for early voters with 46 million votes and the amount of voters increased by 4.7% from the 2012 election. If anything, more people voted to stop whatever candidate they hated more. With that being said, the point you made right before that said that, but I just wanted to point out that the voter turnout was actually great this year. 

At the end of the day, I was disappointed with the result and I would have much rather had someone like Jill Stein win, but the green party won't get any coverage on the media lol. The good thing is, Trump can't do worse than we expect, right?

Zlinqx : I wanted to wait till we got the actual vote to post here. I agree with your first point about how the US election system is flawed. I think that the electoral college isn't the best for the country. You mentioned people who voted for the party that didn't win a swing state have no voice, and I totally agree. On top of that, people in historical liberal states with conservative views (and vice versa) will have their vote mean basically nothing. The whole west coast is liberal heaven and the Deep South is always conservative. This also makes it that much harder for third parties to win because so many states are already given to a party by basically default. I think the popular vote is much more accurate of the country's choice. The electoral system is rather outdated because the population today is way too big for it to still work properly. We're essentially giving more value to people in certain states because they live in a swing state and their votes matter more than people living in non-swing states. That's not right and if we went by popular vote, we would have had Al Gore as president in 2000 rather than the abomination that was the Bush administration. 

" Keep in mind that this is also only taking into account people who are voting for one candidate and not those who in stead decide not to vote at all because they may strongly dislike both or various other reasons. Which one could assume is a very large group judging by the low voter turnout the US has had for the presidential election and will likely continue to have."

I don't think that's the case at all actually. This year's election set a record for early voters with 46 million votes and the amount of voters increased by 4.7% from the 2012 election. If anything, more people voted to stop whatever candidate they hated more. With that being said, the point you made right before that said that, but I just wanted to point out that the voter turnout was actually great this year. 

At the end of the day, I was disappointed with the result and I would have much rather had someone like Jill Stein win, but the green party won't get any coverage on the media lol. The good thing is, Trump can't do worse than we expect, right?
Trusted Member

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 11-22-14
Last Post: 1984 days
Last Active: 17 days

11-09-16 10:07 AM
geeogree is Offline
| ID: 1313147 | 159 Words

geeogree
Mr Geeohn-A-Vash53215
Level: 290


POSTS: 27766/29291
POST EXP: 1955397
LVL EXP: 420131161
CP: 52472.4
VIZ: 528573

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Zlinqx : you changed the argument from candidate to party which is leaving me confused.

I agree that the 2 party system in the US is flawed. There needs to be a real alternative (or 2 or 3) that could win.

In Canada it is similar to other European countries where there are anywhere between 4-7 parties that garner 2%+ of the vote and we regularly have 4 or more parties represented legislatively. However, unless you are part of one of the 4 or 5 major parties you stand NO chance of winning a seat. The party system in nearly every country is that way. Either you affiliate with a party or you get lost. Most voters don't take the time to learn about candidates. All they see is the party they like the most and vote for those people. I think political parties should be abolished EVERYWHERE and force people to outline their platforms and vote based on that.
Zlinqx : you changed the argument from candidate to party which is leaving me confused.

I agree that the 2 party system in the US is flawed. There needs to be a real alternative (or 2 or 3) that could win.

In Canada it is similar to other European countries where there are anywhere between 4-7 parties that garner 2%+ of the vote and we regularly have 4 or more parties represented legislatively. However, unless you are part of one of the 4 or 5 major parties you stand NO chance of winning a seat. The party system in nearly every country is that way. Either you affiliate with a party or you get lost. Most voters don't take the time to learn about candidates. All they see is the party they like the most and vote for those people. I think political parties should be abolished EVERYWHERE and force people to outline their platforms and vote based on that.
Vizzed Elite
Former Admin
Banzilla


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 01-03-05
Last Post: 90 days
Last Active: 15 hours

11-09-16 10:17 AM
Zlinqx is Offline
| ID: 1313149 | 207 Words

Zlinqx
Zlinqx
Level: 121


POSTS: 3718/4673
POST EXP: 657361
LVL EXP: 19955982
CP: 52722.7
VIZ: 617684

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
geeogree :

In theory I agree with having a party system in itself bringing problems, but not having one complicates things in other ways. I don't think one person alone can come up with a platform on how in precise detail deal with every issue. While you could still have people helping candidates without them officially making a party, that would essentially just turn into parties without an official label.

They key reason people can't succeed outside of the major parties in most representative democracies is because they lack support. While a shortcut to that is tapping into an already established support base like that of a party. New parties can emerge. Using my own political system as an example. The Sweden Democrats (Swedish Anti Immigration party) was founded less than 30 years ago by a single person and is today the third largest party and is starting to grow even larger. Same with our version of The Green Party which went from pretty much nothing in the 80s to becoming one of the major parties today.

So while I agree that there are problems, I don't see how abolishing the party system would actually fix it. People are bound to organize themselves one way or another.
geeogree :

In theory I agree with having a party system in itself bringing problems, but not having one complicates things in other ways. I don't think one person alone can come up with a platform on how in precise detail deal with every issue. While you could still have people helping candidates without them officially making a party, that would essentially just turn into parties without an official label.

They key reason people can't succeed outside of the major parties in most representative democracies is because they lack support. While a shortcut to that is tapping into an already established support base like that of a party. New parties can emerge. Using my own political system as an example. The Sweden Democrats (Swedish Anti Immigration party) was founded less than 30 years ago by a single person and is today the third largest party and is starting to grow even larger. Same with our version of The Green Party which went from pretty much nothing in the 80s to becoming one of the major parties today.

So while I agree that there are problems, I don't see how abolishing the party system would actually fix it. People are bound to organize themselves one way or another.
Vizzed Elite

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 07-21-13
Last Post: 136 days
Last Active: 2 days

(edited by Zlinqx on 11-09-16 10:19 AM)    

11-09-16 10:36 AM
jlove92 is Offline
| ID: 1313153 | 182 Words

jlove92
Level: 57


POSTS: 708/880
POST EXP: 90012
LVL EXP: 1449452
CP: 6193.2
VIZ: 247087

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Democracy does not exist in this country. The election system is bogus and so are the candidates that pretend to go against each other when in reality they are in the same boat. People are made happy with an illusion and that's it. People vote blue vs red with little regards to what is in stake and who those parties choose as their representatives. It's all about one or the other and no one bothers to demand someone capable and smart to run for president. I saw the entire list of those candidates running for presidency and it was a joke specially considering Clinton and Trump- the biggest jokes of them all- the standard for presidency is so low that you can't really expect much to come from it. I wish partied were dissolved and it was just candidates running on their own without a political party endorsing them and hopefully that forces people to educate themselves, check the facts, do their own math, and learn a thing or two about how an economy works, and how to efficiently be a diplomat. 
Democracy does not exist in this country. The election system is bogus and so are the candidates that pretend to go against each other when in reality they are in the same boat. People are made happy with an illusion and that's it. People vote blue vs red with little regards to what is in stake and who those parties choose as their representatives. It's all about one or the other and no one bothers to demand someone capable and smart to run for president. I saw the entire list of those candidates running for presidency and it was a joke specially considering Clinton and Trump- the biggest jokes of them all- the standard for presidency is so low that you can't really expect much to come from it. I wish partied were dissolved and it was just candidates running on their own without a political party endorsing them and hopefully that forces people to educate themselves, check the facts, do their own math, and learn a thing or two about how an economy works, and how to efficiently be a diplomat. 
Trusted Member
Queen of Hearts


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 10-19-15
Location: Florida
Last Post: 1073 days
Last Active: 516 days

11-09-16 11:37 PM
Postman3 is Offline
| ID: 1313312 | 956 Words

Postman3
Level: 46


POSTS: 367/447
POST EXP: 115514
LVL EXP: 676277
CP: 10646.0
VIZ: 245385

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Zlinqx : I can tell you what Canada is like.

We had for the first time in a while the strongest developed political leader in Canada since Chretien and like Jean Chretien he was underappreciated at the top role. He was too good a politician. Too smart. Too capable at handling things. Contrary to what Cox said about most people finding themselves in the middle, most Canadians identified with something else. Something unexpected [to me I guess so I am perhaps out of touch with my own populace as was Stephen Harper].

His opponent across the floor took a radical stand on just one issue. Legalization of dangerous street drugs which definitely have an effect how one person operates a motor vehicle or behaves in public. We already have booze for that so why legalize another just because people like it and cannot [for reasons unknown to me] stop taking that dung into their bodies[they swear it is not addictive, evidently not]. The opponent was adamantly for it.

Stephen Harper, I read his comment, did not take a stand to oppose that. Middle of the floor was the motto he was rocking. Get many people of different ideologies interested in supporting him. Middle of the floor. Take no stand on any issue. What did he say? "I have asthma so that would preclude me smoking anything." Smart guy! Avoided that one with a fallback rationalization which is probably true. That's why we loved him so why didn't he win?

Side note: I knew a guy in my class who had asthma as early as the fourth grade and possibly before. He started smoking even earlier than that grade. Yes. More legalization of certain drugs is necessary so they can be in every childhood home simultaneously along with every other drug any human has ever consumed. Smoking funny things could then become as common as raiding your parent's private liquor cabinet for parties. Your parents keep that stuff for days they are lonely or have adult guests over. Hands off! If your parents have a drinking problem, I apologize. Mine did not usually drink too much and I took on a pretty balanced view that I wanted to treat my body more like a temple than they did[they fat]. So that is where my perspective on getting inebriated is coming from.

So while then Prime Minister Stephen Harper's response was rational, it would not make sense to some jerk voter who from an early age thought of the human body as primarily a "toy". That is the generation I grew out of touch with. I didn't understand guys like that. Harper did not understand them. Mr. Jack-butt dragging his herb-infused feces across the rug of current day Canadian parliament knows these jerks all too well. He went to many parties with such people. "Hey Man, I totally relate! 'Fist bump.' My wealthy father who raised me as a boy mostly on Sussex, in Ottawa told me it was totally okay to be blazed all the time. In factomundo, I am next in line [huff] for they Canadian throne. My birthright. They cannot stop meh. meh meh meh meeee..."

So you get it now. He[current Prime Minister] is one of those jerks with barely the capability to load vegetables at the local produce market. He is our top leader. You ought to be glad[if you have ever watched The Apprentice] that Don Trump actually exhibits some leadership skills.


Stephen Harper probably ought to have taken a stand on an important issue. A really important issue. Like keeping treacherous street drugs out of family homes. Instead, he dodged it while approving messages about how the Liberal jack-butt supported legalization which seemed radical to me but not to the jerks of our country. Unaware that his best ads with something to say actually benefited Liberal party interests. They{Liberal party} are mostly concerned with being in power and collecting their paycheck. The ultimate sellouts. They would say anything. Have legalization wheels ground any faster. No, they haven't and they have been in office for how many months? That is how quick their party gets things done. Let's call it 2019{imagine the voice of a slacker who wants to come into work a few hours later}. New election. New promises freshly on the heels of what we actually managed to get done in four years.

This year Liberals! Act on all those beaver-dammed promises before this Christmas! That way we can live with your decisions all through your reign and know how not awesome your decisions have been because we would have years to think about how things have been going. That way you could be held accountable. If something good actually came of it, you would be rightfully reelected.

This is not a criticism against anyone who identifies as "liberally thinking". Just the current day Liberal party. Sometimes middle of the meter is not the place to be on political issues when you are a leader. Sometimes you have to provoke a personal, emotional, physical, chemical, addiction-fused response, need or desire for your voice in government, even if you only say it to get elected. Ultimate sellouts. Big time jerks. Known only for winning. Not actually for accomplishing anything of note.

Oh yeah, there are Canadian jerks living all around us and making the rest of us watch ourselves. Ask Annette. She parties with these guys using recreational substances. Hard to tell who is really nasty when you can barely see in front of your own face, huh?

If you feel yourself start to make friends with such a jerk or that they may have those tendencies, stop. Right now. Thank you very much.

Those drugs will dull the human touch.

P3
Zlinqx : I can tell you what Canada is like.

We had for the first time in a while the strongest developed political leader in Canada since Chretien and like Jean Chretien he was underappreciated at the top role. He was too good a politician. Too smart. Too capable at handling things. Contrary to what Cox said about most people finding themselves in the middle, most Canadians identified with something else. Something unexpected [to me I guess so I am perhaps out of touch with my own populace as was Stephen Harper].

His opponent across the floor took a radical stand on just one issue. Legalization of dangerous street drugs which definitely have an effect how one person operates a motor vehicle or behaves in public. We already have booze for that so why legalize another just because people like it and cannot [for reasons unknown to me] stop taking that dung into their bodies[they swear it is not addictive, evidently not]. The opponent was adamantly for it.

Stephen Harper, I read his comment, did not take a stand to oppose that. Middle of the floor was the motto he was rocking. Get many people of different ideologies interested in supporting him. Middle of the floor. Take no stand on any issue. What did he say? "I have asthma so that would preclude me smoking anything." Smart guy! Avoided that one with a fallback rationalization which is probably true. That's why we loved him so why didn't he win?

Side note: I knew a guy in my class who had asthma as early as the fourth grade and possibly before. He started smoking even earlier than that grade. Yes. More legalization of certain drugs is necessary so they can be in every childhood home simultaneously along with every other drug any human has ever consumed. Smoking funny things could then become as common as raiding your parent's private liquor cabinet for parties. Your parents keep that stuff for days they are lonely or have adult guests over. Hands off! If your parents have a drinking problem, I apologize. Mine did not usually drink too much and I took on a pretty balanced view that I wanted to treat my body more like a temple than they did[they fat]. So that is where my perspective on getting inebriated is coming from.

So while then Prime Minister Stephen Harper's response was rational, it would not make sense to some jerk voter who from an early age thought of the human body as primarily a "toy". That is the generation I grew out of touch with. I didn't understand guys like that. Harper did not understand them. Mr. Jack-butt dragging his herb-infused feces across the rug of current day Canadian parliament knows these jerks all too well. He went to many parties with such people. "Hey Man, I totally relate! 'Fist bump.' My wealthy father who raised me as a boy mostly on Sussex, in Ottawa told me it was totally okay to be blazed all the time. In factomundo, I am next in line [huff] for they Canadian throne. My birthright. They cannot stop meh. meh meh meh meeee..."

So you get it now. He[current Prime Minister] is one of those jerks with barely the capability to load vegetables at the local produce market. He is our top leader. You ought to be glad[if you have ever watched The Apprentice] that Don Trump actually exhibits some leadership skills.


Stephen Harper probably ought to have taken a stand on an important issue. A really important issue. Like keeping treacherous street drugs out of family homes. Instead, he dodged it while approving messages about how the Liberal jack-butt supported legalization which seemed radical to me but not to the jerks of our country. Unaware that his best ads with something to say actually benefited Liberal party interests. They{Liberal party} are mostly concerned with being in power and collecting their paycheck. The ultimate sellouts. They would say anything. Have legalization wheels ground any faster. No, they haven't and they have been in office for how many months? That is how quick their party gets things done. Let's call it 2019{imagine the voice of a slacker who wants to come into work a few hours later}. New election. New promises freshly on the heels of what we actually managed to get done in four years.

This year Liberals! Act on all those beaver-dammed promises before this Christmas! That way we can live with your decisions all through your reign and know how not awesome your decisions have been because we would have years to think about how things have been going. That way you could be held accountable. If something good actually came of it, you would be rightfully reelected.

This is not a criticism against anyone who identifies as "liberally thinking". Just the current day Liberal party. Sometimes middle of the meter is not the place to be on political issues when you are a leader. Sometimes you have to provoke a personal, emotional, physical, chemical, addiction-fused response, need or desire for your voice in government, even if you only say it to get elected. Ultimate sellouts. Big time jerks. Known only for winning. Not actually for accomplishing anything of note.

Oh yeah, there are Canadian jerks living all around us and making the rest of us watch ourselves. Ask Annette. She parties with these guys using recreational substances. Hard to tell who is really nasty when you can barely see in front of your own face, huh?

If you feel yourself start to make friends with such a jerk or that they may have those tendencies, stop. Right now. Thank you very much.

Those drugs will dull the human touch.

P3
Vizzed Elite
Sir Postman


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-21-10
Location: Avalon
Last Post: 2249 days
Last Active: 5 days

11-19-16 10:37 PM
Pokemonfan1000 is Offline
| ID: 1315757 | 10 Words

Pokemonfan1000
Level: 58


POSTS: 439/957
POST EXP: 48442
LVL EXP: 1542868
CP: 2097.1
VIZ: 2100

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Why talk about democracy when we can talk about republicacy?
Why talk about democracy when we can talk about republicacy?
Perma Banned
The only user so far in the 309 and 563 area codes currently active on any acmlm based board (save for smwcentral.net and Lespna1) If you want to dispute this claim, feel free to PM me.


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 10-20-16
Location: Quad Cities
Last Post: 2466 days
Last Active: 2466 days

Links

Page Comments


This page has no comments

Adblocker detected!

Vizzed.com is very expensive to keep alive! The Ads pay for the servers.

Vizzed has 3 TB worth of games and 1 TB worth of music.  This site is free to use but the ads barely pay for the monthly server fees.  If too many more people use ad block, the site cannot survive.

We prioritize the community over the site profits.  This is why we avoid using annoying (but high paying) ads like most other sites which include popups, obnoxious sounds and animations, malware, and other forms of intrusiveness.  We'll do our part to never resort to these types of ads, please do your part by helping support this site by adding Vizzed.com to your ad blocking whitelist.

×