quote:Originally posted by Sterling: I did listen to John Edwards, and I thought that some of what he said about "two nations" put very eloquently some things that I'd been thinking for some time.
I think when you get past the use of "liberal" as an epithet and a sound bite to eliminate the need to engage issues, most of the "liberals" stand for things a lot of people might agree with, if they were allowed to see more than sound bites.
Well said, and I agree.
quote:"No one of consequence is going to speak in favor of these things, and the "mom and apple pie" crowd will eat it up..." Damn the Bill of Rights, full speed ahead, keep your eye on the polls.
As Tom Davidson said, the Democrats need a spine. Until they stop trying to stand for what some study says people want to hear and get aggressive on what they feel is important and right... Well, I'm not enough into futility to join, say, the Greens, but I can't say the Democratic party fills me with joy and hope. Given current events, I almost- almost- feel like we're likely to see liberal Republicans before we see a resurgance of liberal democrats.
I'd love to see someone emerge who has the backbone to stand up and speak honestly, instead of cater to the polls. Unfortunately in order to get to the national position that would allow them to run for President, the politicians play the Poll game, and say whatever they/their staff believe will get them elected. You never know what the newly elected President is really thinking, until they start nominating Supremes, or writing EOs.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: Well, it's not directly affecting YOUR body or YOUR life, really, since you don't have to go through the pregnancy.."
-pH
What happens to a man's child doesn't directly affect his life? Unless you're suggesting that the majority of fathers out there abandon their unborn children, in which case I'd like to see some proof of that.
I've always found this argument rather insulting.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I marched for Civil Rights and against the Vietnam war. If I did something similar now I could end up on a 'watch' list in Washington. To me that is not conservatism, but instead borders on emergent Fascism.
Uh...what?
Is the government organized enough to spend time and money to do something so goofy? I seriously doubt such a claim has any basis in fact. And man, I'm not even going to touch the voting machine conspiracy theory, which is just as silly.
I think we believe too much of the media hype, frankly. I always think of the "X-Files" movie and how they implied that FEMA was the "shadowy" organiztion that would get emergency powers during a crisis and, subsequently, would usher in our country's enslavement to aliens. Then New Orleans came along and the real FEMA blew a rod in front of everyone.
I guess "Trust No One" was good advice.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sterling, I absolutely agree. We absolutely need a spine and an electorate that is willing and able to pay attention. The only way we are going to get that is to let our elected represnsetives know that we are paying attention and that they will be held accountable. I am somewhat more optimistic because I live in Evanston, Illinois and am blessed with two pretty great senators and I couldn't be prouder of my congresswoman.
I campaigned in Wisconsin (very little need to campaign here). What I heard from folks voting for President Bush was a lot of fear. Fear of terrorists and fear of liberals (and gays) corrupting the culture. It always strikes me as bizarre that folks in rural towns in Wisconsin and Indiana are more afraid of terrorists and gays than folks in New York, Chicago and LA. Also, kind of funny that the most obviously religious folks I talked to - a convent full of nuns - were all voting Democrat.
I also heard a lot of people say that, even though they didn't agree with the President, it was unpatriotic to change presidents in the middle of a war. Great way to stay in power, that!
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: Well, it's not directly affecting YOUR body or YOUR life, really, since you don't have to go through the pregnancy.."
-pH
What happens to a man's child doesn't directly affect his life? Unless you're suggesting that the majority of fathers out there abandon their unborn children, in which case I'd like to see some proof of that.
I've always found this argument rather insulting.
Again, you've entirely missed the point of what I said. I, personally, DO NOT BELIEVE that that is a valid argument. I stated it so that YOU GUYS would see how MORONIC it is to claim that because gay marriage does not "directly affect" people who are not gay, it's silly that people who aren't gay still want it to be accepted.
I'm going to resist being deliberately insulting right now and just end this post.
posted
You'd think I'd be used to it by now. After all, I did have to leave my home, the place I was born and raised and move 2000 miles away because of that kind of attitude...
But I really hate it when conservatives, christians and even democrats rip on the idea that gay people love just as well as straight people. That some how if gay people get married it will corrupt society and doom us all.
I vote republican even though I'm pro-gay marriage and pro-choice. Heck, I've been used as an example of an Arch-Conservative by jatraqueros on at least 3 different boards. (yay ego-surfing.)
But when conservatives start talking about the gays I hear the hate in their voice and I feel that hate directed at me. The daggers of people I otherwise agree with slipping into this little bi girl's back.
quote:Then New Orleans came along and the real FEMA blew a rod in front of everyone.
That's what they WANT you to think.
Hurricane Katrina Investigation, written by a House subcommitte which was ENTIRLY Republican:
quote:Republicans' Report on Katrina Assails Administration Response
By Eric Lipton Published: February 13, 2006 WASHINGTON, Feb. 12 — House Republicans plan to issue a blistering report on Wednesday that says the Bush administration delayed the evacuation of thousands of New Orleans residents by failing to act quickly on early reports that the levees had broken during Hurricane Katrina. A draft of the report, to be issued by an 11-member, all-Republican committee, says the Bush administration was informed on the day Hurricane Katrina hit that the levees had been breached, even though the president and other top administration officials earlier said that they had learned of the breach the next day. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/13/politics/13katrina.html
quote:Katrina Report Spreads Blame Homeland Security, Chertoff Singled Out
By Spencer S. Hsu, Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, February 12, 2006
Hurricane Katrina exposed the U.S. government's failure to learn the lessons of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, as leaders from President Bush down disregarded ample warnings of the threat to New Orleans and did not execute emergency plans or share information that would have saved lives, according to a blistering report by House investigators http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/11/AR2006021101409.html
quote: Weather Warning Investigators have concluded that the federal government, even when it saw this dire warning from the National Weather Service, did not act as if it knew that local authorities would not be able to fend for themselves. Here is the warning, which was issued on the afternoon of Sunday, Aug. 28. http://www.nytimes.com/ref/national/nationalspecial/10katrina-docs.html?8dpc
information and links copied and pasted from another thread...Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
If you're referring to the 2000 Presidential election and you're not one of the people who found their way onto a convicted felons list and thus was disenfranchised wrongly (and obviously that particular process needed to be much more careful than it was), I don't think I have to prove it.
You do remember the swarms and swarms of reports and coverage about recounts, and the controversy over specifically when to stop the recount, not to have them at all? Not to mention many recounts done independantly by news organizations after the election...many of whom using the most lenient and Democrat-friendly recounting standards, still turned up a victory for Dubya?
Are you seriously suggesting you have some grounds to think your vote wasn't counted? Seeing as how that is by far the exception and not the rule, I invite you to prove your outlandish, possibly-paranoid claim rather than my having to prove what most of us regard as self-evident.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now if there was report about strange swarms of bees flying form cornfields attacking people, and alien organisms gestating in thse who've been stung, then I'd wonder if New Orleans was just a big front to...
posted
"It's not the votes that count, it's about who counts the vote."
I think that when the provider of the voting machines resists examination of the machines by a third party, resists providing a paper ballot/receipt and has stated publicly that he would do anything is his power to see Bush re-elected, it is common sense rather than paranoia that prompts Silkie's concern. And mine.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Instead of focusing on fixing our poor educational system and other public services, we're having to fend off Christians trying, often dishonestly, to impose their values and religion on others.
This is a bit of what I'm talking about. Based on our society today, are people really buying this? Have they really made any headway? How has your life changed because others tried to "impose" their beliefs, especially since you're aware of such tactics?
Err...I'm sorry, are you denying the spread of the ID movement and it's effects on American society and schooling? I was referencing real things like the Dover PA school district there. I'm not sure if you're suggesting that these things didn't happen or just that I shouldn't be upset about them.
Also, as I've said before, I'm always amazed how so many anti-gay people recapitulate anti-civil rights arguments. It's not a big problem and people shouldn't care because it affects a minority? Do you think that white people shouldn't have cared about the struggle for civil rights as well?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's my understanding that Silkie was speaking of something that happened in the past, not present and future concerns about electronic voting machines, which should obviously have massive third-party independant oversight as well as paper-trails.
Had I known he was speaking about that and not having his vote stolen (and incidentally, Republicans do not hold sole power in determining how voting is done, btw) in the present and future, my response might have been different.
So...no, that dog ain't gonna hunt. Silkie was referring specifically to the 2000 Presidential vote and said his vote wasn't counted, and asked me to prove it. As if I or anyone could possibly do that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by estavares: Now if there was report about strange swarms of bees flying form cornfields attacking people, and alien organisms gestating in thse who've been stung, then I'd wonder if New Orleans was just a big front to...
(gasp)
...hide the real threat.
FEMA only PRETENDS to be utterly incompetent. In reality, every FEMA debit card is dusted with a mind-altering virus that makes the recipient completely subservient to the will of the REAL, dark, evil FEMA.
quote:Originally posted by pH: Well, it's not directly affecting YOUR body or YOUR life, really, since you don't have to go through the pregnancy.."
-pH
What happens to a man's child doesn't directly affect his life? Unless you're suggesting that the majority of fathers out there abandon their unborn children, in which case I'd like to see some proof of that.
I've always found this argument rather insulting.
Again, you've entirely missed the point of what I said. I, personally, DO NOT BELIEVE that that is a valid argument. I stated it so that YOU GUYS would see how MORONIC it is to claim that because gay marriage does not "directly affect" people who are not gay, it's silly that people who aren't gay still want it to be accepted.
I'm going to resist being deliberately insulting right now and just end this post.
-pH
Again? Which was the first point that I missed?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Do you think that white people shouldn't have cared about the struggle for civil rights as well?
You misunderstand the purpose of this thread. I get fighting for causes that may not have direct effect on us personally; that covers much of why we feel one way or the other in politics. I was curious about the direct effects which, it seems, is few and far between for most people. I'm not reading a lot of examples.
I don't think ID is making any headway. Our society is too secular on the whole, and such seedlings will be isolated incidents, rather than affecting you or most anyone else on this board or in the nation. It's no threat at all, IMHO.
My whole point is fishing for concrete examples of how the Evil Right has really done anything to hurt anyone; we've covered gay marriage, so I get that, so what else?
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again? Which was the first point that I missed?
I said:
quote:My point isn't that men shouldn't have a say in abortion. I think, in ideal circumstances, both the man and the woman should have a say in whether or not they decide to have children OR, if they have decided previously not to have children, they should both have a say in whether or not to abort an unplanned pregnancy.
My point is that it's silly to say that people shouldn't fight for gay unions to be recognized just because they themselves aren't gay. I think you guys knew that already.
posted
Whether or not there was malfeasance committed with regard to electronic voting in 2004, all sides ought to have a vested stake in making sure that the vote and the voting system appear fair and transparent to all. That, having won, this administration doesn't seem to care about others' concerns regarding the voting process, is just one more example where I feel they represent only certain people, and don't owe the rest nuthin'. Given the 2000 brouhaha, there was a unique opportunity to establish a fair and transparent system; an opportunity which was, to my mind, blown.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's the big problem with a paper trail for electronic voting? You push a button the vote is electronically recorded, and then a printer pops out a little slip with the voting information on it and some ID number for the voter that can be manually counted later if necessary to backup the report from the computer.
Is that really so hard?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, yes. I don't think it's a reason not to do it, and it's certainly doable, but it's best not to underestimate the difficulties.
Printers are notoriously unreliable - they jam, they run out of ink, they run out of paper. The signals that detect such things are also less than perfectly reliable. This means that there must be mechanisms to monitor the printer without monitoring what's written on the paper.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't imagine it's that big a problem so long as someone is there to actually check on them and is qualified to fix any potential problems. I work in a restaurant that has about 20 printers going almost non stop all day long and there are rarely printer jams, and this after years of going day in and day out. Having someone on hand to change the ink ribbon and the paper roll can't be that big a deal.
Pain in the butt? Sure. Worth it? Certainly.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There have been a lot of interesting side points brought up since the begining of this thread, but I'm going to try and answer the initial question before addressing anything else.
quote: I began to wonder, with all the complaining by many who hate Bush & Co and fear the Religious Right's influence on American society, what is the real threat? How has average society been directly hurt by their existence?
What is the real threat? That is the crux of the issue, and a good question.
All of those points - abortion, seperation of church and state, gay marriage, inhibiting sex laws, and censoring the media - are hot button issues because they represent a level of freedom that has either been won or is being withheld. Freedom to make your own decisions about your body and your life. That is what it all boils down to. # 2 is, I guess, a little more complicated, because it involves other peoples rights to express themselves. However, as far as I know, voluntary praying in school by STUDENTS is not prohibited, and teachers are only prohibited from leading prayers, not praying themselves. And the restrictions are in place to keep seperate our secular educational centers and our religious ones. I cant imagine being in a school where this wasnt the case. I remember, when I was a kid, I refused to say the pledge of allegiance because it had the words "One nation, under God". I didnt believe that this was right, and wanted nothing to do with it. So, I'd stand up out of respect, but I wouldnt put my hand over my heart, and I wouldnt say the words. I never got in trouble over this, but in a school where pray is mandatory, I most certainly would have.
Anyways, what I'm saying is that a lot of the anger people feel towards the so called "Religious Right" and GWs administration has to do with the fact that they feel these freedoms are being quite seriously threatened. Just for an example, people who are vehemently opposed to abortion are being manipulated into positions of power. The Supreme Court has just agreed to go back over the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that GW signed into law in 2003. This law has been deemed unconstitutional by 6 federal courts because it lacks a stipulation allowing for the health of the pregnant woman. Our new justices Alito and Roberts have BOTH expressed marked anti-abortion leanings. How is this NOT threatening? Full article here.
All right, so, why do these issues make people so angry? Because, unless you live in a very well insulated bubble, it is impossible not to see the long lasting effects that allowing freedoms to be taken away and allowing religion to dictate state policy has had on EVERY society in the world at one point or another. Liberals are angry because they arent short sighted. They look into the future, and into the past, and they see that the path WE are merrily skipping down as a country right now has been tread by countless feet before us, and the destination sucks. I do realize that I am probably giving most liberals alot more credit than they are due. Not everyone who is angry has a well thought out reason for it. But, in general, the people who are the most vocal opponents of what is happening in our government today are well educated, coherent, and right. Or so say I .
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
I meant both of Bush's elections, sorry if I was unclear.
I live in Florida. In Dubya's first election we voted on paper ballots that were processed through a scanner. I witnessed a black woman who was in line ahead of me get the 3rd degree when she checked in to vote. I was basically waived through.
Why you ask? I am a white fifty-something grandmother, and I was wearing business attire.
Well, I am not good at keeping my mouth shut in such situations. I asked the poll workers why MY I.D. wasn't checked and why this black lady had been questioned so strongly. I was polite but I did cause a bit of embarrassment for them. My husband and I discussed it that evening, and he had a similar thing happen in front of him.
At the next election in that precinct my name was not on the rolls anymore. A coincidence, of course. I insisted on voting that day, and did, at least I think I did, though notes were made on the voting records.
We have touch screen systems now, and the machines don't print a receipt. Our Governor (Bush's brother)had a unique method of dealing with the impossibility of a recount with these Touch Screen systems: He and the legislature wrote a law making it illegal to request a recount when Touch Screen systems are used.
These same touch screen systems have now been outlawed in Miami because it was proven by multiple security checks that the software can be hacked. The totals in the 'accounting' software can be easily hacked and changed.
So why do I question whether my vote was counted - hmmmm, I wonder.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: FEMA only PRETENDS to be utterly incompetent. In reality, every FEMA debit card is dusted with a mind-altering virus that makes the recipient completely subservient to the will of the REAL, dark, evil FEMA.
quote:I can't imagine it's that big a problem so long as someone is there to actually check on them and is qualified to fix any potential problems. I work in a restaurant that has about 20 printers going almost non stop all day long and there are rarely printer jams, and this after years of going day in and day out. Having someone on hand to change the ink ribbon and the paper roll can't be that big a deal. Pain in the butt? Sure. Worth it? Certainly.
Remember the purpose of the printer in the voting machines: to make a record that can't be tampered with.
Giving people access to that record - and any access for clearing jams, changing ink, and adding paper would almost certainly give some access - goes against the idea of a secure transaction.
Further, printer errors are sometimes nondetectable short of looking at the paper. For example, I've seen printers that return no error but print gibberish. And we don't want people looking at the paper, because it allows people to see who voted for whom.
As I said, it's possible and worth doing. But it ain't easy.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Are you seriously suggesting you have some grounds to think your vote wasn't counted? Seeing as how that is by far the exception and not the rule, I invite you to prove your outlandish, possibly-paranoid claim rather than my having to prove what most of us regard as self-evident.
Oh here is another 'interesting' thing that happened here during the 2000 election mess. It only made the local news.
A Poll Worker took home a large stack (hundreds) of Absentee ballots, and he was filmed doing it. And of course the ballots were returned to the Elections office, where they were eventually counted. That nice man certainly wouldn't have altered those ballots - or would he?
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But, in general, the people who are the most vocal opponents of what is happening in our government today are well educated, coherent, and right.
Actually, we're well educated, coherent, and left.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps we should note that there are well educated, coherent people on both the right and the left.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh here is another 'interesting' thing that happened here during the 2000 election mess. It only made the local news.
OK, so your fears are based entirely on largely unreported speculation (founded on legitimate concerns), and in exactly one half of the cases you were complaining of, your points about electronic voting was irrelevant.
You're really not doing yourself or your cause or your party (I'm presuming you're a Democrat, but I could be mistaken) by stating as a near-fact this kind of thing going on based on speculation and fears. See, I already think there are serious problems with the way voting is handled in America, from the local way straight up to the top. I already think there needs to be serious reform. I already dislike the idea of people getting turned away from the polls or even persuaded away for anything short of triple-checked guaranteed violation resulting in exclusion.
The only thing you accomplish by weaving all of that together with, "Those dastardly Republicans and Bushies stole my vote!" is to get people to turn off their ears. I had that impulse, and I'm a registered Independant! Try to imagine how much headway you'd make with the people you really need to convince, those who support Bush.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have VERY few registered Independents in FL. If I was registered as an Independent I would be unable to vote for anyone except Independents in our primaries. I am one of those often mentioned 'swing' voters. I usually vote Democrat - though at times I have voted for people who happen to be Republicans or Independents. I find it frustrating to have to choose a party, but when forced to choose I chose Democrat when I registered.
I PERSONALLY witnessed those 'irregularities' detailed in my post above. That's not speculation. The "largely unreported speculation" about that Poll worker who took home the ballots was never disputed by the Republican Supervisor of Elections in that town. There was enough local outcry that the Supervisor of Elections was investigated. She had also allowed another irregularity: Republican volunteers were allowed to call Republicans whose Absentee Ballots would have been rejected (for various reasons), to verify and 'fix' the ballots. She would not allow Democrats to do the same thing, which is how she got caught. As I said - it was never denied.
The ballots the old gentleman took home were quietly put back with the other ballots, even though the 'tampering' should have disqualified them. I think that's significant in an election that was won (or lost) by less than a thousand votes. I've looked for a link in local news about that, and so far haven't been able to find one. So it is from my memory. Believe it, or don't.
I think we might agree on a few things, Rakeesh:
quote:I already think there are serious problems with the way voting is handled in America, from the local way straight up to the top. I already think there needs to be serious reform. I already dislike the idea of people getting turned away from the polls or even persuaded away for anything short of triple-checked guaranteed violation resulting in exclusion.
I certainly agree with that. It is now simpler and easier to fix an election through these unverifiable Touch Screen systems.
Is it my emotional argument that turns you off? If it is, I'm sorry - that's me.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am aware of my diminished political power by remaining a registered Independant...but damnit, I'm just not signing on with either of those bunch of selfish, smug, self-important bunch of jackasses, period. I know it costs me a chunk of my franchise, but since I figure the other method is outright cynical surrender.
As for what you saw...with all due respect, just coming from a single individual, it's still speculation as far as I'm concerned. Just because there's no backing for it, for this specific thing, the black lady getting turned away. I know it has actually happened, so why not link to a news story about it, or mention some coverage? I tend not to place much stock in anecdotal 'evidence', especially in politics.
What turns me off is not your emotional arguing style, what turns me off is its ineffectiveness in persuading those who most need to be persuaded. See, when you point out irregularities that happened in favor of Republicans and ignore irregularities that happened in favor of Democrats, Republicans turn off their ears and stop listening-and are thus unpersuaded, and the entire issue of irregularities and the need for stricter and more uniform oversight remains what it was when you started: a partisan issue that never budges.
I think you'll find you have much more success, for instance, in simply saying, "There are and have been serious problems with the way Florida elections and vote counts are handled. For instance, there is a documented case of a man taking home absentee ballots, and double-standards in how and when absentee voters are contacted about any irregularities. Don't you think we should stop that sort of thing, make the law apply uniformly to everyone?"
I can tell you from experience that this argument actually works on someone who voted for Bush, whereas your style of victimized Democrats does not. And I'm not saying it convinced me, either-I believed what I've been saying since well before 2000.
The kind of emotional, blatantly partisan arguing you constantly engage in has less to do with persuading people who have any internal leeway than it does with thumping your own chest and trumpeting your grievance. That is certainly understandable...but frankly not useful at all as a persuasive tool to change people's minds. I'm sure you noticed that the people who agree with you agreed with you from the start.
In fact, I can say that with the same degree of certainty that I can about KoM's not really being interested in persuading people towards atheism: because I recognize you as an intelligent person, capable of understanding which methods work and which don't. And if after recognizing that, you continue to utilize methods that don't work, I have to wonder: what's your goal?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: one of the nice things about Indiana is anyone can vote in any primary regardless of registration, you just can only vote in one of the primaries.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The only thing you accomplish by weaving all of that together with, "Those dastardly Republicans and Bushies stole my vote!" is to get people to turn off their ears. I had that impulse, and I'm a registered Independant! Try to imagine how much headway you'd make with the people you really need to convince, those who support Bush. [/QB]
This statement caught my eye so I thought I'd throw in my two cents.
I don't think that it is possible anymore to change anybody's mind (in most cases), no matter how reasonable or thought-out the argument is. National politics have become way too polarized. Nobody is really willing to change their mind and even mild disagreement with "the party line" on either side can cause people to start leveling accusations. I guess my main point is that there seems to be very little dialogue even when people don't resort to "the evil Bushies stole the election" or "democrats love terrorists" type of talk.
(this is only in my experience, of course)No matter how mildly I phrase criticism of a Bush policy (and no matter that I avoid conspiracy theories), some of my friends launch into tirades about how unpatriotic I am, how I hate America, and how dare I not support the president while we're at war. However, whenever I express disgust with elements of the democrats' agenda, other friends say that I have no right to call myself a REAL liberal/environmentalist/feminist/American and that how dare I not support the opposition to the Bush administration.
So maybe other people have more reasonable friends than I do, but I think my group of friends are probably a microcosm of what's going on nationally. I don't like the Bush administration. I think they do scary things. But I shudder to think that the Washington democrats are our only hope.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems silly to make a system that forces you to register for one party and then doesn't allow you to vote for whomever you think is the best candidate, regardless of party. I'm surprised that system is still in place anywhere.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn: most states only allow voting in the primary of the party you're registered for, iirc. At least for the two major parties, I know some states let independents vote in either primary even when Dems and Republicans can only vote in their primaries
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think you should be able to vote in both primaries, that wouldn't necessarily be fair. But you should be able to vote in either, whichever you happen to think has the best candidate that you want to support.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Unfortunately, both parties have challenged the legality and/or constitutionality of such primary systems (where one could vote in the primary of one's choice) where they have existed.
Bless their pointy little heads.
If one party has reason to think the other has engaged in election tampering, the party to whom the question is put would do well to work towards putting those questions to rest rather than ignoring them and rendering the legitimacy of their election in question. To do otherwise is despicable. They can snarl about partisanship until the cows go home, but the question remains, and the questions about the refusal to answer that question build. (If I can put it obliquely...) Indignation just adds to the appearance of obfuscation.
I really don't know if in the current climate it's a matter of convincing anyone. It's too easy for those in power just to stonewall until the majority eventually thinks the objectors are crackpots because "they're still at it?"
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I assure you it's possible. I've done it before, and sometimes from the same people, no less, who I have previously heard ranting about unAmerican liberals and whatnot. Obviously there are going to be many people who are unpersuadable in a one-time shot, though.
Fugu,
Yeah, I've heard there are a few states that do that. Some even that let registered members of one party vote in the other party's primaries. One concern I've heard about that is that it can be used as an attempt to sabotage the other party's primaries, voting for a weaker candidate for whom your party's candidate will eventually run.
I'm not sure how widepsread it is, but if it was, it could be a problem. On the other hand, you only get to vote the once (actually, I'm not sure how often primary votes are made within one primary-is it just once? I've never voted in one, b/c I'm an Independant, obviously) so maybe any sabotage is mitigated that way. If it happens a lot at all.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for your input Rakeesh. I value criticism which is intended to help, like yours. And I know I copped out when I chose to register as a Democrat. In my 'old age' I am becoming a bit cynical, but I don't consider it surrender. I consider it practical.
quote:Originally posted by Stasia: --- So maybe other people have more reasonable friends than I do, but I think my group of friends are probably a microcosm of what's going on nationally. I don't like the Bush administration. I think they do scary things. But I shudder to think that the Washington democrats are our only hope.
That says what I mean in a way I was not able to express. My votes for Gore and for Kerry were choosing the lesser of two evils. Even then, we were cheated of the 'anyone but Bush' alternatives. On a National level the 'lesser of two evils' is often our only choice as voters.
I would have voted for Minnie Mouse if she was the alternative to Bush that would win! I wrote Minnie in as a candidate in an unopposed local reelection, for someone I considered a poor (but well connected) choice.
Lately I have begun to respect Gore more. I have liked his lectures about Global Warming/environmental issues, and the way he is 'coming out' politically against the excesses of the current administration are refreshing. Maybe losing so painfully close helped him grow more whole and honest in his approach. He says he is not running for office, and I hope that's true. I think he's more effective as an environmental advocate needling any current administration, than as a politician.
I know this will seem smart a*s, but what the heck... I honestly wish there was 'None of the Above' on every ballot. And if "None of the Above" wins, then make it the rule that ALL other candidates must step aside, in favor of a new election and new candidates. It would cost more initially, but in the end we would be better served.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |