Anger is a powerful motiviator, like any emotion can be. But it's not the best tactic for making friends or expressing a point of view that could reach across idealogical lines and possibly change minds. Humor, on the other hand, can do that, esepcially if it has enough humility to poke fun at itself as well as it's intended target. Regardless of who wins next week, we all have to live together and make this work some how. I think a sense of humor helps with that!
Nonetheless, I admit to being frightened. The policies put in place by this administration do not make me feel secure about my freedoms, nor do the actual behaviors of those responsible for enforcement. The idea of another four years, utterly unchecked, is almost unthinkable.
I remember idle speculations during the Nixon years, especially near the end, but nothing as concrete as what we have seen in the past year.
You know my opinion about this bunch. My opinion, as expressed in my Live Journal and in replies on other's LJ pages has probably not changed any minds and has alienated some friends (sorry about that). But posting has helped me cope with fear and apprehension about the future. I feel less alone this way.
I'm not concerned that people vote the way I want them too. My concern is that people won't bother to vote who's vote - in the aggregate - could make a difference. I know you are not happy with the choices offered - I'm not thrilled, either. But I have made up my mind and I will vote. Take care!
While I don't know as much about US politics as some here do, I have chatted about the upcoming elections over the last few weeks with people online, and stumbled across an interesting site - the site of a Presidential candidate, Michael Badnarik, the other week. He is the Libertarian candidate. While I don't agree with everything that's said on his site, the vast majority of it seems very logical and reasonable.
I don't think that the way to go for Americans will be sticking with the current two-party system. A two-party system is only one party better than a dictatorship, and since it doesn't seem that Bush and Kerry differ much on key issues, I'm not sure what voting in Kerry is going to achieve. It's been joked over the last few years that voting for either Republican or Democratic in the US is voting Republicrat. The US is the leading country in the Western world - is this kind of "democracy" really the example that they want set?
Ah, but you have to look at it in terms of what is sometimes called "gamesmanship".
Getting rid of the two party dominance here is going to be a long, difficult process. It is deeply entrenched, and the two major parties have tremendous power in perpetuating it.
The problem in a presidential election is this: the winner will inevitably be the candidate of either the Republicans or the Democrats. The whole system assures that. It will only change if an overwhelming majority of voters choose the same third party candidate, something that hasn't happened since before the US Civil War (150 years ago.)
If the expected results are not close at all (as with Reagan's re-election, or Nixon's re-election, or the 1964 Johnson landslide) then people can express their opinion by voting for a third party candidate. A third party candidate who gets a lot of votes (as Ross Perot almost did) gains a certain amount of ability to sway opinion further or perhaps even influence the direction of government policy.
If the election is close, however, as this one is expected to be, every vote matters. If you feel strongly that Bush must be removed, as animist and I do, you have no viable choice other than to vote for Kerry. I don't particularly like Kerry, nor do I trust him very far. But we have concrete evidence of the threat embodied in four more years of Bush administration. The only way to get Bush out is to vote for Kerry. And because of the antiquated and inappropriate Electoral College system (which is only partly Constitutional, and largely governed by tradition and state laws) voters who live in overwhelmingly Republican states can't even influence things that way. Their vote is essentially lost.
The Electoral College is the reason that a third party presidential candidate cannot win in practice. Such a candidate has to accumulate a majority in the Electoral College, where votes are awarded on a block basis, state by state. So he/she has to be the clear winner in several large states, each of which is presently controlled by one of the two major parties who can weigh in powerfully to prevent that, using either legal or underhanded and illegal means (Florida got the spotlight in 2000 and looks like it is about to get the same again this year.)
Theoretically, if a third party candidate could achieve a majority of the vote in just one key state during a close election, the Electoral College would deadlock, throwing the choice of the president into the House of Representatives. The trouble with that is that under those circumstances, congresscritters always vote the partisan line. Since all of them belong to one or the other of the two major parties, the winner would still be a major party candidate. A stir of excitement would be produced, but the third party candidate gains nothing in the end, and is quickly forgotten. (This has happened several times, but not since the 19th century I think.)
The only practical way for a third party to gain power on the national level is for them to begin at the local level, winning small local offices, then state legislative posts, then governorships and congressional posts. This is theoretically possible. But I estimate it would take a minimum of 20 years. So far, no third party interest group has succeeded over a long enough period to make that a reality.
The US system was deliberately designed to be hard to change. It is supposed to weather the tides of popular fads, and stay the course set slowly and by tiny increments. That served well for most of the first 200 years, though the Civil War came close to being its destruction. However, in the faster and faster pace of modern social and economic changes I think the 18th century design is starting to show its age. It can't react and adjust fast enough, and its momentum leads to situations like the present one.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 12:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 12:19 am (UTC)I remember idle speculations during the Nixon years, especially near the end, but nothing as concrete as what we have seen in the past year.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 01:02 am (UTC)I'm not concerned that people vote the way I want them too. My concern is that people won't bother to vote who's vote - in the aggregate - could make a difference. I know you are not happy with the choices offered - I'm not thrilled, either. But I have made up my mind and I will vote. Take care!
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 02:35 am (UTC)Michael Badnarik
Date: 2004-10-29 12:05 pm (UTC)While I don't know as much about US politics as some here do, I have chatted about the upcoming elections over the last few weeks with people online, and stumbled across an interesting site - the site of a Presidential candidate, Michael Badnarik, the other week. He is the Libertarian candidate. While I don't agree with everything that's said on his site, the vast majority of it seems very logical and reasonable.
I don't think that the way to go for Americans will be sticking with the current two-party system. A two-party system is only one party better than a dictatorship, and since it doesn't seem that Bush and Kerry differ much on key issues, I'm not sure what voting in Kerry is going to achieve. It's been joked over the last few years that voting for either Republican or Democratic in the US is voting Republicrat. The US is the leading country in the Western world - is this kind of "democracy" really the example that they want set?
Re: Michael Badnarik
Date: 2004-10-29 03:12 pm (UTC)Getting rid of the two party dominance here is going to be a long, difficult process. It is deeply entrenched, and the two major parties have tremendous power in perpetuating it.
The problem in a presidential election is this: the winner will inevitably be the candidate of either the Republicans or the Democrats. The whole system assures that. It will only change if an overwhelming majority of voters choose the same third party candidate, something that hasn't happened since before the US Civil War (150 years ago.)
If the expected results are not close at all (as with Reagan's re-election, or Nixon's re-election, or the 1964 Johnson landslide) then people can express their opinion by voting for a third party candidate. A third party candidate who gets a lot of votes (as Ross Perot almost did) gains a certain amount of ability to sway opinion further or perhaps even influence the direction of government policy.
If the election is close, however, as this one is expected to be, every vote matters. If you feel strongly that Bush must be removed, as
The Electoral College is the reason that a third party presidential candidate cannot win in practice. Such a candidate has to accumulate a majority in the Electoral College, where votes are awarded on a block basis, state by state. So he/she has to be the clear winner in several large states, each of which is presently controlled by one of the two major parties who can weigh in powerfully to prevent that, using either legal or underhanded and illegal means (Florida got the spotlight in 2000 and looks like it is about to get the same again this year.)
Theoretically, if a third party candidate could achieve a majority of the vote in just one key state during a close election, the Electoral College would deadlock, throwing the choice of the president into the House of Representatives. The trouble with that is that under those circumstances, congresscritters always vote the partisan line. Since all of them belong to one or the other of the two major parties, the winner would still be a major party candidate. A stir of excitement would be produced, but the third party candidate gains nothing in the end, and is quickly forgotten. (This has happened several times, but not since the 19th century I think.)
The only practical way for a third party to gain power on the national level is for them to begin at the local level, winning small local offices, then state legislative posts, then governorships and congressional posts. This is theoretically possible. But I estimate it would take a minimum of 20 years. So far, no third party interest group has succeeded over a long enough period to make that a reality.
The US system was deliberately designed to be hard to change. It is supposed to weather the tides of popular fads, and stay the course set slowly and by tiny increments. That served well for most of the first 200 years, though the Civil War came close to being its destruction. However, in the faster and faster pace of modern social and economic changes I think the 18th century design is starting to show its age. It can't react and adjust fast enough, and its momentum leads to situations like the present one.