"We have a duty and responsibility to cast our electoral votes behind the president if he wins West Virginia," Capehart said. "Because that's what the Republican Party expected when they chose us."
This is a telling statement. Shouldn't Capehart be more concerned about this guy representing the popular vote, in other words, the voice of the majority of people of West Virginia...instead of standing "behind the president?"
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. He said "if he wins West Virginia". The states DO represent the popular vote, and the only way this joker can be the elector would be if Bush does win the popular vote.
If Bush doesn't win the popular vote there, then the Democrat electors will cast the votes in the electorial college.
There are two sets of electoral college voters... one for each party.
The US two-party-only system has always baffled me. Every thing I learn more about the system supports the concept that it is pretty much by law only a two-party state.
For example, your above comment. What would happen if an independant candidate won a state? Who would be the electoral college voter?
It is not two party only. Remember Nader? If he had won as state his electors would have been empowered to vote for him (or someone else, some states make it mandatory, some don't0.
Each candidate or party who gets on the ballot nominates a slate of electors. If an independent (or third party candidate) won the state, they would have already nominated their slate, usually from their campaign staff or volunteers.
How is voting my conscience throwing away my vote? Independants and third parties have won many offices in our nation, if I strongly disagree with the two major party candidates, and feel they are unfit to lead, and strongly agree with a third party candidate who is on the ballot - it is my civic duty and moral obligation to vote for the individual I feel best qualified to take the post.
>How is voting my conscience throwing away my vote?
it isn't, the quote is from the Simpsons which is commonly cited on/. the episode where the 2 major candidates are subsumed by space aliens Kang and Kodos. when someone says they will vote for a 3rd party candidate to avoid world domination via the rigged election, Kand makes that quote.
ie, it is a commentary about how stupid it is to think voting for a 3rd party candidate is stupid.
It is a two party system because of emergent effects from the voting system [denbeste.nu] (about 1/3rd of the way in to that piece). I also think that link is the best defense of the current system. I used to think our voting system was flawed for the usual reasons trotted out on Slashdot but now I think not many people understand how well our system works; voting between "two evils" is actually something of a feature.
Also note that today's Republican Party is a third party. They killed off the Whig party a long time ago. It is not impossible for that to happen again. If the Democrats don't shed their radical leftists*, it may happen again really soon.
(Bi-Partisan note: Part of the reason the Republicans are doing so well is that they analysed their failures during the Clinton era and marginalized some groups like the Christian Right that were detrimental to them. (Criticisms that the Republicans are controlled by them are now out of date.) Hopefully, after Kerry tanks the Democrats will do some housecleaning and re-align with the center a little better. I could never vote for Kerry, but if they put forth someone who doesn't have to pander to the loony left, I might consider it. (Bi-Partison note the second: Yes, I would say the Republicans shook off their loony right. "Loonies" here are people who consider a person or position 100% evil with no chance of facts changing their mind.))
Raidcal leftists? Explain. Your asterisk led me nowhere*. Like, I know some radical leftists, like say, anti-social anarchists, and they're a far cry from anything the Democratic party even comes close to, even, being in the same universe as.
*Did you mean your note on "Loonies"? Maybe your definition of radical differs from the one generally well understood in most politcal or social theory, but "radical" theory is not required at all to have to do with changing one's mind or considerations on evil. It
Dude. This is Slashdot. Just be glad his spelling was okay, and quit nit-picking about the misuse of an asterisk.
However, I agree with your point that neither of the major parties really have genuine radicals in them. I consider that a Good Thing. Whether Bush or Kerry is elected, we will continue to have a fairly stable economy where a regular guy like me has a decent shot at a decent life. Also, whichever of them is elected, Social Security will either crumble or cost a fortune (or both) long before
I wasn't really nitpicking on his asterisk at all. I do not care one bit about bad spelling or grammar or form or anything like that. As long as I can understand. But I honestly did not know if his asterisk led to the note on loonies or to nowhere. I just try to maintain a very terse writing form that definitely comes off as insensitive, or maybe anti-syncretic is a better term, to avoid rants from those infamous "grammar nazis", which tends to do me no good anyway because of typographical errors.
I thought libertarian would be fiercely against the patriot act and some of the executive orders of the Bush administration. Do I misunderstand "libertarian"?
I don't agree with every policy of the Libertarian Party. Hence the use of the phrase "small-L" to emphasize that I believe in small government principles, but I'm not in lock-step with the LP.
I'm against some aspects of the PATRIOT Act, as well as several of the bi-partisan reccomendations of the 9/11 committee, as they do expand the Federal government's role in our lives, but Kerry voted for PATRIOT, and was actually quicker to adopt the 9/11 reccomendations than Bush was, so I consider the candidates a
"but that sort of fiasco is far preferable to the economic chaos that would be brought about if either socialist or libertarian major reforms were too abruptly thrust upon us."
Please remember, that if a third party did win the house and senate would still be controlled by the 2 parties. Thus, nothing RADICAL would happen.
Sorry, it was meant to lead to the "Bi-partisan note", which was meant to show I think there are "loonies" on both sides, or at least were in the recent past. (Of course the Republicans haven't 100% removed them, but they no longer set the agenda.)
I define "loonies" as I did, as I also define "liberal" and "conservative" damn near everytime I use them, because there are so many definitions of the words that when you see them in isolation, they are worse than meaningless. On my blog, I have alternately used
Of course the Republicans haven't 100% removed them, but they no longer set the agenda.
You mean the republican agenda to cut taxes whenever possible, end government oversight of industry, cut civil liberties in the name of security, privatize or eliminate social services, unilaterally and selectively enforce UN resolutions, end all abortions (even when required for the mother's health), and write gay bashing into the constitution isn't radical?
The democrats are currently way too controlled by people seriously running around claiming Bush is worse than Hitler.
What a joke! Who is saying this? Please show me an elected democrat, democrat running for office, or democratic party official who said anything like this. You can't take an internet message board and say that it represents the party leadership.
This is just the most recent example, which I ran across earlier today:
I think that local republicans still look to the loony christian right for support. It may not be a prominent part national platform but it's still there. Consequently the republicans have things on there platform specifically for the loonies or worded in a way to avoid loony offence. To paraphrase a Saudi reporter railing on muslim extremists: All republicans are not right wing christian loonies but most (if not all) christian loonies are republican. I'm not sure if the democrats have a radicalized group
I think that local republicans still look to the loony christian right for support. It may not be a prominent part national platform but it's still there.
Yes. It is the prominence, not the presense, that has changed. As my linked article points out, they are never going to disappear because they have nowhere else to go.
Yes, I would say the Republicans shook off their loony right. "Loonies" here are people who consider a person or position 100% evil with no chance of facts changing their mind.
That actually struck me as a pretty good description of Zell Miller, after he spoke at the RNC and the interview afterwards.
Actually, what Miller did was give a passionate speech about an issue and BACKED IT UP WITH FACT.
What facts did he use to back up this, the central point of his speech:
No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.
Yes, he did list weapons which Kerry had voted against. He also did note that, "As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military." However, he
marginalized some groups like the Christian Right that were detrimental to them. (Criticisms that the Republicans are controlled by them are now out of date.)
You are aware that Bush is president, right? He may not get into heaven, but he sure knows how to preach to those that try.
Moving beyond that, your argument is full of holes. What exactly is the left trying to do that's "loony"? You didn't actually mention anything, other than a qualifier that impossibly stubborn people are loony. Are you making the
"Just like I'm not saying Bush is a slave owner I'm not saying he's the one causing global warming (which is I understand it is a culmination of completely natural processes and CFCs)."
Global warming is caused by the rapid increase in the burning of fossil fuels, now that China and other less-developed countries are modernizing. Another cause is extremely rapid deforestation. Chlorinated Fluorocarbons play a role, too, I understand.
The issues with the Bush administration are more complex than you m
Putting the environment before people Well, honestly, we might very well have to, if we don't start making some sacrifices soon. Callous as it may sound, the livilehood, even the life, of some people is not worth a serious catastrophe.
(And, no, don't even bring up "The Day After Tommorrow." That's like bringing up "Star Wars" when people start talking about the dangers of totalitarian governments.)
My argument is "full of holes" because you are so certain you know what I was going to say that you simply assumed that was my point. As a result, the accusation that I failed to prove the point you leaped to the conclusion that I was going to try to prove fails to move me.
For instance, you assumed I was calling you a loony. That is empirically wrong. I provided a definition of the term loony, one which, for what it is worth, is unassailable because I get to tell you what I mean by my words. Read the defin
Your argument being that choosing the best from two evils is ok, especially since they should be so closely together in their politics that it really doesn't matter which of the two is elected anyway? And you dare call that system good or even democratic?
I hope you're a succesfull Troll and not representative of how informed US citizens think about the US presidential election system...
I'm the type of person that rather replies than mods down, but I admit that was I tempted there for a moment.
Note: On the world stage, many view the entire U.S. system as skewed to the Right.
One example, politicalcompass.com [politicalcompass.com] puts Kerry nearly center on a graph of left/right and also of authoritarian/libertarian, with GWB further right and authoritarian than Kerry.
A differnt type of world leader, such as Ghandi and Nelson Mandella fall left and libertarian.
In that light, Kerry's the more "centered" to the world, which GWB is the radical. The far left in the Dems are probably quite a way over on the graph, but could be either authoritarian or libertarian depending on their views.
Of interesting note, virtually no world leaders fall in the Libertarian/Right quadrant - a rare person indeed.
> One example, politicalcompass.com puts Kerry nearly center > on a graph of left/right and also of authoritarian/libertarian, > with GWB further right and authoritarian than Kerry.
I guess it goes to show that one should be careful in labeling people. To a Nazi*, everybody's a radical leftist.
* Note to itchy Godwin** wannabes: I'm not calling Bush a Nazi
** I just thought of this; Now that there's a politics section, maybe Slashdot*** should add a moderation score for "Godwin's Law". Whether it's -
Yes, true. If he personally answered them instead of going by his policies which are tempered toward the middle by his desire to keep his approval ratings high, he'd be even further right, and probably more authoritarian.
The religious right is simply a tool to gain support. The republicans currently in power use both religion and nationalism to gain favor with a sizable chunk of the population. The situation we have now is exactly why government and religion needs to be kept separate. Dont get me wrong, I think there are some good, honest republicans out there, but they dont mention god in every speech.
The third party would sent their voter to cast their ballot for that State's college, they might even swing a deal to pick a candidate or just toss it away on their own 3rd runner. Hmm... I never realized that a 3rd party might hold this much influence until now.
There was a really good speech on C-SPAN a few weeks ago about the two party system we have here in the US. It talked about how everyone loses when we are forced to vote for the 'lesser of two evils'. It talked about how the democrats needed the republicans to stay in power and vice-versa. I don't remember who wrote it, but I would really like to find an archive online of it. I think the speech was called "Two party system" by Allen or Al somebody (could be completly wrong on name and author). If anyon
Exactly. A two party system becomes like one dragon with two heads. A Duopoly. They spout different rhetoric during campaign season, but that's about the only difference. Two parties is only one more than USSR had, after all. Both know the other, and are fairly comfortable doing the political dance with the other, and conspire to keep anybody else out. How? By arbitrarily high requirements for ballot qualifications and debate inclusion, among others.
The US has a two-party system because plurality voting leads to Duverger's Law [wikipedia.org]. Essentially, a single choice can only decide between two things (duh). When you introduce a third (or more) then there are multiple preferences, and these are not recorded by the system. These secondary preferences, when taken en masse, could have influence. This is the basis for Condorcet's [electionmethods.org] method [eskimo.com] of voting. But since everyone somehow "knows" that only the top two contenders matter (though this becomes a self-fulfilling pr
The solution to a problem changes the nature of the problem.
-- Peer
Stand behind the president? What? (Score:2)
This is a telling statement. Shouldn't Capehart be more concerned about this guy representing the popular vote, in other words, the voice of the majority of people of West Virginia...instead of standing "behind the president?"
tcd004
Re:Stand behind the president? What? (Score:3, Insightful)
If Bush doesn't win the popular vote there, then the Democrat electors will cast the votes in the electorial college.
There are two sets of electoral college voters... one for each party.
As an outsider... (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, your above comment. What would happen if an independant candidate won a state? Who would be the electoral college voter?
Re:As an outsider... (Score:2)
Re:As an outsider... (Score:3, Informative)
Every candidate who is on the ballot provides a slate of electors. So whoever wins sends their people to the electoral college.
-Esme
Re:As an outsider... (Score:1)
Re:As an outsider... (Score:1)
Go ahead! Throw your vote away!
- Kang
Re:As an outsider... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As an outsider... (Score:1)
it isn't, the quote is from the Simpsons which is commonly cited on
ie, it is a commentary about how stupid it is to think voting for a 3rd party candidate is stupid.
Re:As an outsider... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also note that today's Republican Party is a third party. They killed off the Whig party a long time ago. It is not impossible for that to happen again. If the Democrats don't shed their radical leftists*, it may happen again really soon.
(Bi-Partisan note: Part of the reason the Republicans are doing so well is that they analysed their failures during the Clinton era and marginalized some groups like the Christian Right that were detrimental to them. (Criticisms that the Republicans are controlled by them are now out of date.) Hopefully, after Kerry tanks the Democrats will do some housecleaning and re-align with the center a little better. I could never vote for Kerry, but if they put forth someone who doesn't have to pander to the loony left, I might consider it. (Bi-Partison note the second: Yes, I would say the Republicans shook off their loony right. "Loonies" here are people who consider a person or position 100% evil with no chance of facts changing their mind.))
Re:As an outsider... (Score:3, Informative)
*Did you mean your note on "Loonies"? Maybe your definition of radical differs from the one generally well understood in most politcal or social theory, but "radical" theory is not required at all to have to do with changing one's mind or considerations on evil. It
Re:As an outsider... (Score:1)
However, I agree with your point that neither of the major parties really have genuine radicals in them. I consider that a Good Thing. Whether Bush or Kerry is elected, we will continue to have a fairly stable economy where a regular guy like me has a decent shot at a decent life. Also, whichever of them is elected, Social Security will either crumble or cost a fortune (or both) long before
Re:As an outsider... (Score:2)
Anyway.
Re:As an outsider... (Score:2)
thx
Re:As an outsider... (Score:2)
I'm against some aspects of the PATRIOT Act, as well as several of the bi-partisan reccomendations of the 9/11 committee, as they do expand the Federal government's role in our lives, but Kerry voted for PATRIOT, and was actually quicker to adopt the 9/11 reccomendations than Bush was, so I consider the candidates a
Re:As an outsider... (Score:1)
Re:As an outsider... (Score:3, Informative)
I define "loonies" as I did, as I also define "liberal" and "conservative" damn near everytime I use them, because there are so many definitions of the words that when you see them in isolation, they are worse than meaningless. On my blog, I have alternately used
Re:As an outsider... (Score:2)
Of course the Republicans haven't 100% removed them, but they no longer set the agenda.
You mean the republican agenda to cut taxes whenever possible, end government oversight of industry, cut civil liberties in the name of security, privatize or eliminate social services, unilaterally and selectively enforce UN resolutions, end all abortions (even when required for the mother's health), and write gay bashing into the constitution isn't radical?
The democrats are currently way too contro
Re:As an outsider... (Score:2)
This is just the most recent example, which I ran across earlier today:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131946,00.html [foxnews.com]
Re:As an outsider... (Score:2)
Re:As an outsider... (Score:2)
Yes. It is the prominence, not the presense, that has changed. As my linked article points out, they are never going to disappear because they have nowhere else to go.
Re:As an outsider... (Score:2)
Yes, I would say the Republicans shook off their loony right. "Loonies" here are people who consider a person or position 100% evil with no chance of facts changing their mind.
That actually struck me as a pretty good description of Zell Miller, after he spoke at the RNC and the interview afterwards.
Of course, he's a Democrat.
Re:As an outsider... (Score:2)
Actually, what Miller did was give a passionate speech about an issue and BACKED IT UP WITH FACT.
What facts did he use to back up this, the central point of his speech:
Yes, he did list weapons which Kerry had voted against. He also did note that, "As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military." However, he
Re:As an outsider... (Score:2, Flamebait)
You are aware that Bush is president, right? He may not get into heaven, but he sure knows how to preach to those that try.
Moving beyond that, your argument is full of holes. What exactly is the left trying to do that's "loony"? You didn't actually mention anything, other than a qualifier that impossibly stubborn people are loony. Are you making the
Bush sells the government to whomever will pay. (Score:2)
"Just like I'm not saying Bush is a slave owner I'm not saying he's the one causing global warming (which is I understand it is a culmination of completely natural processes and CFCs)."
Global warming is caused by the rapid increase in the burning of fossil fuels, now that China and other less-developed countries are modernizing. Another cause is extremely rapid deforestation. Chlorinated Fluorocarbons play a role, too, I understand.
The issues with the Bush administration are more complex than you m
The only thing I'm gonna say (Score:2)
(And, no, don't even bring up "The Day After Tommorrow." That's like bringing up "Star Wars" when people start talking about the dangers of totalitarian governments.)
Re:As an outsider... (Score:2)
For instance, you assumed I was calling you a loony. That is empirically wrong. I provided a definition of the term loony, one which, for what it is worth, is unassailable because I get to tell you what I mean by my words. Read the defin
Re:As an outsider... (Score:2)
Your argument being that choosing the best from two evils is ok, especially since they should be so closely together in their politics that it really doesn't matter which of the two is elected anyway? And you dare call that system good or even democratic?
I hope you're a succesfull Troll and not representative of how informed US citizens think about the US presidential election system...
I'm the type of person that rather replies than mods down, but I admit that was I tempted there for a moment.
Re:As an outsider... (Score:5, Informative)
One example, politicalcompass.com [politicalcompass.com] puts Kerry nearly center on a graph of left/right and also of authoritarian/libertarian, with GWB further right and authoritarian than Kerry.
A differnt type of world leader, such as Ghandi and Nelson Mandella fall left and libertarian.
In that light, Kerry's the more "centered" to the world, which GWB is the radical. The far left in the Dems are probably quite a way over on the graph, but could be either authoritarian or libertarian depending on their views.
Of interesting note, virtually no world leaders fall in the Libertarian/Right quadrant - a rare person indeed.
Re:As an outsider... (Score:3, Informative)
politicalcompass.ORG [politicalcompass.org]
Oops.
Re:As an outsider... (Score:2)
> on a graph of left/right and also of authoritarian/libertarian,
> with GWB further right and authoritarian than Kerry.
I guess it goes to show that one should be careful in labeling people. To a Nazi*, everybody's a radical leftist.
* Note to itchy Godwin** wannabes: I'm not calling Bush a Nazi
** I just thought of this; Now that there's a politics section, maybe Slashdot*** should add a moderation score for "Godwin's Law". Whether it's -
Re:As an outsider... (Score:2)
Re:As an outsider... (Score:2)
Re:As an outsider... (Score:2)
Re:As an outsider... (Score:2)
What is wrong with you? Kerry is way to darn conservative, has ties to big business, his wife is a freaking South African millionaire!
Loony left would be if they came from a hippy colony and smoked joints during press interviews!
Yeesh.
Let me put it in perspective
THE DUDE WEARS A FREAKING SUIT
He is not THAT liberal.
Re:As an outsider... (Score:1, Troll)
Re:As an outsider... (Score:2)
CSPAN Program - Two Party System? (Score:1)
Re:CSPAN Program - Two Party System? (Score:1)
Exactly. A two party system becomes like one dragon with two heads. A Duopoly. They spout different rhetoric during campaign season, but that's about the only difference. Two parties is only one more than USSR had, after all. Both know the other, and are fairly comfortable doing the political dance with the other, and conspire to keep anybody else out. How? By arbitrarily high requirements for ballot qualifications and debate inclusion, among others.
Re:As an outsider... (Score:1)
The US has a two-party system because plurality voting leads to Duverger's Law [wikipedia.org]. Essentially, a single choice can only decide between two things (duh). When you introduce a third (or more) then there are multiple preferences, and these are not recorded by the system. These secondary preferences, when taken en masse, could have influence. This is the basis for Condorcet's [electionmethods.org] method [eskimo.com] of voting. But since everyone somehow "knows" that only the top two contenders matter (though this becomes a self-fulfilling pr