Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lord Shonus]

Because most voters think ad hominem is a valid argument, even if they won't admit to it.

Because ad hominem is sometimes a valid argument when someone's past performance, character, or motives are pertinent to the issue at hand. Attacking a politician for his past corruption and for skimming money into his offshore bank account might be a valid argument against re-electing him, assuming you can make such a claim safely and the vote is not rigged.

edit to add: I must admit I have distaste for most critical ad campaigns. I'm certainly not defending them with the paragraph above.

Yes, it's an argument against re-electing him. It's not an argument for electing the person making the ad.

That's the thing. Most elections tend toward a binary solution set, with only two realistic answers. Thus, if you can convince the public that they REALLY don't want candidate B in office, they will vote for candidate A to ensure that B doesn't get the spot. Candidates C,D,E,F rarely are even considered.

[Azzuro]

Because most voters think ad hominem is a valid argument, even if they won't admit to it.

Because ad hominem is sometimes a valid argument when someone's past performance, character, or motives are pertinent to the issue at hand. Attacking a politician for his past corruption and for skimming money into his offshore bank account might be a valid argument against re-electing him, assuming you can make such a claim safely and the vote is not rigged.

edit to add: I must admit I have distaste for most critical ad campaigns. I'm certainly not defending them with the paragraph above.

Yes, it's an argument against re-electing him. It's not an argument for electing the person making the ad.

That's the thing. Most elections tend toward a binary solution set, with only two realistic answers. Thus, if you can convince the public that they REALLY don't want candidate B in office, they will vote for candidate A to ensure that B doesn't get the spot. Candidates C,D,E,F rarely are even considered.

Such is life in the US - other smaller parties, like the Greens, are often just there to fill up the ballot and to give people the impression that they have a choice. This is because it requires untold sums of money just to win a state through advertising, which other smaller parties don't have. People are unlikely to donate to a newly-formed and uncertain party which matches their views, because they view it as a "waste of money'", given that the party does not have a chance of winning. This creates a vicious circle which keeps the two major parties in power, because they have literally no opposition except for each other.

The system also has the side effect of creating a vast majority of "moderate" voters, who will vote for one side or another depending on which side happens to support their viewpoint for now. This in turn means that it is more effective for one of the major parties to convince the voters that the other side wouldn't help them, rather than expound on how their own side will help. In effect, people vote for candidates because the other guy told them that that candidate wouldn't help, rather than how he himself would help.

tl;dr : it's easier to say "That guy can't help because..." over "I will help by..."

[ed boy]

You have to be careful with your wording - when I read your first paragraph, the impression I got is that you believed that the reason for the parties formation and continued existence was to fill up places on the ballot and create the illusion of choice. Although they end up doing this, it is not because they are intended to.

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[Leafsnail]

Come to think of it, ad hominem stories generally make the headlines, whether at election times or not.  I mean, generally there'll be "Candidate B changes stance on economy" as a small feature underneath "CANDIDATE A HAS GAY AFFAIR WITH ADVISOR".

[Nikov]

Because most voters think ad hominem is a valid argument, even if they won't admit to it.

I understand what you're saying, but consider this; if the voter didn't consider the ad hominem, then a mob boss could run for mayor provided all of his expressed policies were sound. Attacking the representative instead of his position is poor form and a waste of time when debating a bill, but when electing the representative the character of the person matters much, much more. I think that's why we see personal attacks up up every election cycle; since we're selecting people rather than policies to the offices, it makes sense we'd discuss the people more than the policies.

[DJ]

If a mob boss actually did a good job, I wouldn't mind him running my city. All politicians have ties in organized crime anyway. At least if it's a local mob boss you know he's not in the local mob boss' pocket. A lot of people share this sentiment, if Berlusconi is any indication.

[Nikov]

If a mob boss actually did a good job, I wouldn't mind him running my city. All politicians have ties in organized crime anyway. At least if it's a local mob boss you know he's not in the local mob boss' pocket. A lot of people share this sentiment, if Berlusconi is any indication.

DJ, you never cease to remind me how great America truely is compared to southeastern Europe.

[DJ]

LOL, do you actually believe that your politicians are not corrupt? Politics is simply not a fit occupation for an honest man. It's like taking a vow of chastity and going into prostitution. OK, so your politicians tend to be in corporate rather than mob pockets, but how is that any better?

[RedKing]

Because politics is about selling people something they want to buy, and everyone is in the market for hate these days.

Sigged.


I think Nikov is partially right, if only because we subconsciously know that a candidate's platform on their policies is mostly BS anyway. They are under no compunction to fulfill any of their campaign promises, other than the threat of not being re-elected some years down the road, by which time most people will have forgotten or be distracted by the tide of ad hominem attacks in THAT election cycle.

So since we know we're gonna get screwed regardless, we elect the person who we feel would at least indulge in pillow-talk while they're assraping us.

[Leafsnail]

Well, campaign funding pretty much guarentees a party to be in someone's pocket.

[Sheb]

Especially now that the Supreme Court ruled that corporation have the same free speech right as human and can spend as much as they want for campaign. :p

Damn, I'm glad to be leaving in belgium, where nobody pay attention to campaign promises, because we know we won't get a government anyway.

[Grakelin]

Consider yourself lucky. My local politicians are running an election next month, and they just leave a flyer on my door with their name and face and nothing else on my doorstep. I have no idea what platforms they're going for or anything.

The incumbent actually personally came to the door, but he took it for granted that he was going to win and didn't stop to chat. He just wanted to remind us to vote for him.

[jmancube]

If a mob boss actually did a good job, I wouldn't mind him running my city. All politicians have ties in organized crime anyway. At least if it's a local mob boss you know he's not in the local mob boss' pocket. A lot of people share this sentiment, if Berlusconi is any indication.

I agree with you. I don't really care who does the job, as long as they do it right. I have a unusually strong distaste for any politicians because in a lot of situations, I can tell that they are lying or hiding something. Sometimes, they just promise something so ridiculous that I can't help but laugh at them. And like DJ said, I would much rather face the evil that I know, rather than someone that attempts to seem honest and caring of the people, but really doesn't give a crap...

[Renault]

Wow. This is a really cynical thread, heh. Does everyone here really think we only have an "illusion of choice," or just the people who chose to respond to this topic?