Print

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

[MonkeyHead]

In the last election the third placed party (Lib Dems) got to play kingmaker, as they could have joined with either the Tories or Labour to form a goverment... this was one of the arguments raised in the recent AV referrendum, which died on its ass as most people didnt want a half way system, and instead wanted a true proportional representational system, a concession the tories wouldnt allow, as FTFP favous them as one of the big boys. The UK badly needs proportional representation due to the numerous parties both geographically and ideologically - not sure how such a system would work in a 2 party system like the US.

[andrea]

I think itīs time for some... TRUST-BUSTING

BRB reviving Teddy Roosevelt

I'd vote for Zombie Teddy Roosevelt.

who wouldn't vote for teddy Roosevelt? agree or disagree with his political ideas, he was awesome.

[Bdthemag]

I think itīs time for some... TRUST-BUSTING

BRB reviving Teddy Roosevelt

I'd vote for Zombie Teddy Roosevelt.

who wouldn't vote for teddy Roosevelt? agree or disagree with his political ideas, he was awesome.

Lower taxes...ON BRAAAAAIIIINS.

[ECrownofFire]

In the last election the third placed party (Lib Dems) got to play kingmaker, as they could have joined with either the Tories or Labour to form a goverment... this was one of the arguments raised in the recent AV referrendum, which died on its ass as most people didnt want a half way system, and instead wanted a true proportional representational system, a concession the tories wouldnt allow, as FTFP favous them as one of the big boys. The UK badly needs proportional representation due to the numerous parties both geographically and ideologically - not sure how such a system would work in a 2 party system like the US.

Proportional or AV would basically allow third parties to actually gain some ground in the US. Right now people are stuck in the self-fulfilling prophecy cycle of not voting for them.

[Chaoswizkid]

Also this: http://news.yahoo.com/tenn-protesters-defy-curfew-3rd-time-030553699.html

Tennessee... I'm glad not everyone in this state is a huge hypocrite. They actually do mean they will defend the rights granted by the Constitution. I hope more officials begin following this example.

[Tellemurius]

Denver occupants got their asses kicked as a couple of guys thought it was a great idea to knock a cop off his motorcycle. Currently they relocated to the civic center for the time being.

[SalmonGod]

Yeah, you're supposed to elect the other major party. Who did exactly the same the last time they got elected.

One party wants to hike taxes on the rich.  The other party wants to cut taxes on the rich.
One party has a pretty extensive health care reform plan.  The other party would repeal that plan if possible.
One party wants to spend more on the military.  The other party is trying to end wars.
One party keeps abortion legal.  The other party wants to end that.
One party favors economic stimulus.  One party opposes it.
One party favors using the fed to achieve full employment.  One party believes in opportunistic deflation.
One party wants to invest in infrastructure.  One party doesn't.
One party wants the federal government to support the states.  One party wants the states to play a larger role.
One party favors an assault weapons ban and streamlining gun regulation.  One party believes this is an infringement of liberty.
One party started a mortgage modification plan a couple years back and the other party launched a massive national 'tea party' to oppose it.
One party believes in fighting climate change.  The other party fillibusters all such efforts.
One party believes in regulations on banks.  The other party doesn't.
One party is in favor of abstinence only education and intelligent design.  The other party thinks those are stupid.

Yes, there are differences, but not in the most important places.

The Democrats still fight together with the Republicans to maintain their monopoly of the political system.
They're still tied together with large business interests, and will screw people over on command just as easily as Republicans.
They still support the slow creep of legislation that dismantles the public's rights piece by piece, and violate the ones they can't dismantle indirectly with laws that are intentionally designed to be easily abused (Patriot Act).
They still support harsh punishment and suppression of whistleblowers and vocal dissent, and aren't past blatant lies to excuse their behavior.

"Tactical voting" is nothing more than a process of drawing shit out.  So you get fucked over in smaller increments, making it less painful and obvious.  That's not good enough for me.

[ECrownofFire]

Not to mention that they're both lobbied just as much for the exact same things.

[mainiac]

Yes, there are differences, but not in the most important places.

None of the places you listed fall into the realm of political debate in the american political sphere.  You aren't complaining about the parties, you are complaining about the nation.  What exactly is the voting system supposed to do about that?  Pass a law requiring voters to be smarter?

Or consider the fact that labour would have been the heavy favorite in 1 on 1 contest between labor and conservatives but they don't even get a share in the governing coalition.

...Would they?  Perhaps if you assumed that all Liberal Democrat voters would have voted Labour if the Lib Dems didn't exist, but considering the horribly unpopular state of the Labour party that doesn't seem likely.

Considering that there was very little overlap between the policies advocated by the conservatives and liberal democrats, I don't think it's exactly a stretch to say that the average liberal democrat supporter would have preferred labor to conservatives.  Their support plummeted in the polls in the months after they entered their abomination of a coalition with the conservatives.  And the conservatives showed where the smart money was by very intelligently encouraging their voters to vote against the AV referendum because they understood that the conservatives would have lost out under a more proportional system.

So yeah, I think labor would have done very well were it not for the vote splitting effect.

[MonkeyHead]

Yes, there are differences, but not in the most important places.

None of the places you listed fall into the realm of political debate in the american political sphere.  You aren't complaining about the parties, you are complaining about the nation.  What exactly is the voting system supposed to do about that?  Pass a law requiring voters to be smarter?

Or consider the fact that labour would have been the heavy favorite in 1 on 1 contest between labor and conservatives but they don't even get a share in the governing coalition.

...Would they?  Perhaps if you assumed that all Liberal Democrat voters would have voted Labour if the Lib Dems didn't exist, but considering the horribly unpopular state of the Labour party that doesn't seem likely.

Considering that there was very little overlap between the policies advocated by the conservatives and liberal democrats, I don't think it's exactly a stretch to say that the average liberal democrat supporter would have preferred labor to conservatives.  Their support plummeted in the polls in the months after they entered their abomination of a coalition with the conservatives.  And the conservatives showed where the smart money was by very intelligently encouraging their voters to vote against the AV referendum because they understood that the conservatives would have lost out under a more proportional system.

So yeah, I think labor would have done very well were it not for the vote splitting effect.

Which pretty much sums up why I think the UK will go back to an Old Labour style socialist government in the next election. The Conservatives tend to piss most people off with thier tax hikes and service cuts, the LibDems have sold out and lost a lot of support, and if whoever is running Labour by then has half a brain they will distance themselves as far as possible from both the Blair years and the Conservative stance. Labour might not get massive gains, but the smaller parties (Plaid in Wales and SNP in scotland) will probably puish for massive gains.

Anyway, all this is besides the point - I sympathise with those in the US who dont really have much of a choice in how thier vote goes. Kinda makes a mockery out of the principle of democracy IMHO if you lack enough choices.

[ChairmanPoo]

In Europe it's not much better. In some ways it is worse.

[MonkeyHead]

How so? AFAIK most large ststes in Europe had at lest 3 or 4 main parties occupying various parts of the political spectrum. Belguim is quite funny in this regard. Thanks to hung elections I dont think they have had an effective government in quite a while.

[SalmonGod]

None of the places you listed fall into the realm of political debate in the american political sphere.

.... what?  I seriously don't understand.  They're things our politics are doing to us, but they're not political issues?  The only reason I can think of for saying this is focusing on the "not falling into the realm of political debate" part.  Of course it doesn't enter into political debate, because both parties operate in the same fashion, while working with each other to maintain a monopoly on the entire political structure...  I guess you could say I'm complaining about the nation, since it is almost completely defined as a collective entity by the dominance of the two major parties.

And no amount of voter intelligence is capable of changing this.  The features I listed are common to both parties.  They're what you're going to get when you vote for either one.  The only intelligent choice is to stop voting for them.  If they're the only voting options, then just don't vote.  All you're doing is giving your consent to their methods of operation.

At this point, the only solution I see is:

I think the system (economic and political) is totally fucked and we need to develop an alternative that people can turn to that exists in parallel with the existing establishment, without being in direct conflict.

[Neonivek]

So is the movement fading out or centralising yet?

I mean... originally I thought the movement was about how inspite of making up the vast majority of the population they have the least amount of actual power. but nope... it is a vague movement with vague motivations and vague hope.

[Dsarker]

I think itīs time for some... TRUST-BUSTING

BRB reviving Teddy Roosevelt

I'd vote for Zombie Teddy Roosevelt.

who wouldn't vote for teddy Roosevelt? agree or disagree with his political ideas, he was awesome.

Who is Teddy Roosevelt? A former president or something?