State of the US Electorate

[CaptainHaplo]

Now I am going to be clear - I was told this is a quote by a Czech citizen, but I have no way to confirm it. However, regardless of who said it, for many here it rings true. Others will disagree vehemently. I will only say if you think the US electorate is wise and thus disagree with this statement, what did the last mid-cycle election mean then? If it IS true (because your a republican and anti-Obama) should you find solace in the last election?

When I read it - my jaw dropped. WOW! So without further introduction:

""The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama Presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their President. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fool,s such as those who made him their President."

[TLAM Strike]

I think I read somewhere that if you ask a sufficiently large group of people a question the majority answer is inevitably the correct answer... :hmmm:

[Sailor Steve]

This is why we have elections every four years, so no one can gain a monopoly, and the bad ones go away quickly. The Founders were smart enough to realize that.

Though the Confederates may have had the better idea: One six-year term and you're done. Period.

I think I read somewhere that if you ask a sufficiently large group of people a question the majority answer is inevitably the correct answer... :hmmm:
"Does history record any case in which the majority was right?"
-Robert A. Heinlein

[Madox58]

My biggest question is:
Why can this electorate vote outway popular votes?
Say every voter says no to Obama when voteing.
But the electorates say Yes.
WTF?
Do we need to hang them all or what?

[razark]

My biggest question is:
Why can this electorate vote outway popular votes?

Because the unwashed masses don't really deserve the right to choose their leaders. They wouldn't be able to select the right person. The uneducated, poor, non-landholding, non-white, non-males don't actually count. Take that up with the guys that wrote the Constitution.

It's an outdated concept, and needs to be removed.

[Sailor Steve]

My biggest question is:
Why can this electorate vote outway popular votes?
Say every voter says no to Obama when voteing.
But the electorates say Yes.
WTF?
Do we need to hang them all or what?
It doesn't work that way. The Electoral College was originally appointed by the state legislatures, and there was no popular vote. Since the Constitution stipulates that Electors are appointed "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct", over the years the states decided that the best way to appoint the Electors was by popular vote. Early on if the states were divided Electors were appointed by proportion. The "whole state goes one way" thing came later.

If the popular vote in one state has 51% for one candidate, then the whole state goes that way. This means that on more than one ocassion a candidate has won the popular vote but lost the election.

Then there was 1824, when Andrew Jackson won both, but not by the necessary margin, so it went to the House of Representatives for a decision. They handed it to John Quincy Adams.

[Sailor Steve]

Because the unwashed masses don't really deserve the right to choose their leaders. They wouldn't be able to select the right person. The uneducated, poor, non-landholding, non-white, non-males don't actually count. Take that up with the guys that wrote the Constitution.
The guys who wrote the Constitution didn't see it that way at all. In their eyes a Representative represented the people of his district, and was elected by them. A Senator represented the state itself, and was elected by the State Legislature. The President represented the people and the states, and his function was mainly limited to representing us all to outsiders, so Foreign Policy was his main job. The Electoral College was meant to keep him from owing favors to any one faction.

It's an outdated concept, and needs to be removed.
You may be right there.

[razark]

The guys who wrote the Constitution didn't see it that way at all.
Well, it's not my fault that history doesn't conform to the way I remember it. :nope:

I really do need to go a re-learn that stuff. It's been a long time since I studied early American history, and all I've got to go on if half-remembered bits and pieces picked up along the way. It's my country, I should know a lot more about how it was founded than I do.


You may be right there.
That's what I've been trying to tell people for years! :know:

[tater]

Because the unwashed masses don't really deserve the right to choose their leaders. They wouldn't be able to select the right person. The uneducated, poor, non-landholding, non-white, non-males don't actually count. Take that up with the guys that wrote the Constitution.

It's an outdated concept, and needs to be removed.

The Electoral College is not outdated at all and makes far more sense than direct, popular vote. The reason Democrats frequently talk about eliminating it (it would take a Constitutional Amendment, luckily, since that ain't gonna happen) is that if it were pure popular vote, the large cities and populous urban states would own the Presidency forever. The rest of the country would be entirely disenfranchised for electing the President.

That is what anyone against the Electoral College is really asking for. The EC forces Presidential candidates to have to appeal to a much broader range of Americans in both large and small states, and is a significant, moderating influence.

[Takeda Shingen]

The Electoral College is not outdated at all and makes far more sense than direct, popular vote. The reason Democrats frequently talk about eliminating it (it would take a Constitutional Amendment, luckily, since that ain't gonna happen) is that if it were pure popular vote, the large cities and populous urban states would own the Presidency forever. The rest of the country would be entirely disenfranchised for electing the President.

That is what anyone against the Electoral College is really asking for. The EC forces Presidential candidates to have to appeal to a much broader range of Americans in both large and small states, and is a significant, moderating influence.

So, to understand your point, the electoral college is important so that one party remains viable through minority rule based on districting and policy. Essentially, that's what you're saying.

[tater]

So, to understand your point, the electoral college is important so that one party remains viable through minority rule based on districting and policy. Essentially, that's what you're saying.

We're talking about an under 1% difference here. The reality is that urban centers would dominate under a strict popular vote, the EC weights smaller states to have very slightly more impact than they would have just based upon population (the only difference being the 2 senatorial electoral votes per state, regardless of size). The entire point of the republic is for States to matter. Smaller states need to have a say. That's the point of equality in Senatorial power, AND in the EC.

This has been true since the Constitution was written. So arguing against the EC is arguing against the ability of a minority party—any minority party at whatever point in time—from being shut out. This is fundamental to the US system, and always has been.

You prefer single party rule?

Your statement "so that one party remains viable through minority rule based on districting and policy" suggests that this is new. This was true since day one, and is exactly the point. Ideally to many of the Founders there would be less "party" and more "State" allegiance, but the results are much the same. The goal was for the less populous areas to have more of a shot at power than they would have solely based on pop—and the current difference is quite small compared to 200 years ago when the EC was actually more grossly slewed to smaller states due to nationally lower populations. When a State was big with 900,000 people, it would have 5 electoral votes, now that would be a tiny state. So as the country has grown, the +2 votes skewing has become smaller and smaller. Growth will eventually make it noise anyway.

Regardless, you'd have to amend the const. for this to get changed, and that simply will not happen since it is not in the interest of the smaller States, and they'd need 3/4 ratification.

[tater]

VA was an electoral powerhouse in 1800. It had a population of under 900,000. That's 5 E-votes. RI had only 1 House seat (a pop under 70,000), so 3 E-votes. 60% of the weight of VA with 1/13th the population.

Now VA has 13 and RI has 4. Just 30% of VA's weight instead of 60%. (8 million pop in VA vs 1 M in RI.

[Takeda Shingen]

We're talking about an under 1% difference here. The reality is that urban centers would dominate under a strict popular vote, the EC weights smaller states to have very slightly more impact than they would have just based upon population (the only difference being the 2 senatorial electoral votes per state, regardless of size). The entire point of the republic is for States to matter. Smaller states need to have a say. That's the point of equality in Senatorial power, AND in the EC.

This has been true since the Constitution was written. So arguing against the EC is arguing against the ability of a minority party—any minority party at whatever point in time—from being shut out. This is fundamental to the US system, and always has been.

You prefer single party rule?

Your statement "so that one party remains viable through minority rule based on districting and policy" suggests that this is new. This was true since day one, and is exactly the point. Ideally to many of the Founders there would be less "party" and more "State" allegiance, but the results are much the same. The goal was for the less populous areas to have more of a shot at power than they would have solely based on pop—and the current difference is quite small compared to 200 years ago when the EC was actually more grossly slewed to smaller states due to nationally lower populations. When a State was big with 900,000 people, it would have 5 electoral votes, now that would be a tiny state. So as the country has grown, the +2 votes skewing has become smaller and smaller. Growth will eventually make it noise anyway.

Regardless, you'd have to amend the const. for this to get changed, and that simply will not happen since it is not in the interest of the smaller States, and they'd need 3/4 ratification.

Truthfully, I never paid much attention to the electoral college argument, so I was simply trying to understand your perspective. In relation to my question your explaination is essentially, yes, it is designed to make a minority party viable. That's all I wanted to know.

[joegrundman]

i think i got that as a spam email about 7years ago, but with the name obama replaced with bush.

[Skybird]

i think i got that as a spam email about 7years ago, but with the name obama replaced with bush.

I did not got that spam mail, but your replacing of names immediately came to my mind when reading the starting post's message. Bush junior not only got elected - he even got elected TWICE. Making the same mistake even twice - what does that tell me about an electorate?

And every couple of years voluntarily agreeing to make the same silly show circus about choosing between plague and cholera - how is about that, what does that tell me about an electorate...?

[Platapus]

You might be interested in

"The myth of the rational voter: Why democracies choose bad policies" by Bryan Caplan 2007

It is not a scholarly book by any means. It is an opinion piece which many here may agree with.

[August]

That's what I've been trying to tell people for years! :know:

It may be updated but why does it need to be removed?

[Sailor Steve]

I did not got that spam mail, but your replacing of names immediately came to my mind when reading the starting post's message. Bush junior not only got elected - he even got elected TWICE. Making the same mistake even twice - what does that tell me about an electorate?
That the majority considered him preferable to the alternative. If those are the choices offered, what do you suggest we do?

[Skybird]

That the majority considered him preferable to the alternative. If those are the choices offered, what do you suggest we do?
Boycott both parties, de-legitimise their ways, strip them off their influence and power by civil disobedience, that way render them useless and powerless. They are deeply corrupt, deeply selfish, deeply lobby-infiltrated clubs that both border organised crime. They do not deserve your loyalty nor obedience, nor anyone else's. If the choice is between two evils, none of them becomes less evil just because there is no better alternative. The problem, you Americans often say, is "too much state". I see it a bit more differentiated. The problem is too much political party, too much lobbyism, too much career politicians, to much lack of transparency.

If the Wikileak principle would be victorious throughout the world, there would be no basis for diplomatic services and politicians anymore. Because both can only work in the darkness of lies and deceptions and dishonesty. And lobbying entrepreneurs and businessmen would run an omni-present risk to be pulled into the spotlight of public awareness if they play foul against the electorate, for their own personal profit.

If you skip a bad status quo, you have a chance for imporvements and a chance for failing in seeking for them. If you tolerate a bad status quo, you have guarantee that there will be no improvements.

I refuse to be deceived by liars and thimbleriggers. Falling for them means to become guilty and sharing responsibility for a corrupt, dysfunctional system living on. That'S why I do not vote, but boycott any legitimation process for politicians, and the system itself. My political responsibility as a citizen is to talk to my next one and trying to convince him. Democracy only has a chance to work from the bottom to the top, it does not work from the top down to the bottom. Transparency is an inevitable precondition for it.

If you have only two bad choices, nobody holds a weapon at your sleeve to make you choose, Steve. If you chooce nevertheless, you make a bad choice.

The system is deeply corrupt, beyond repair. Don't vote. Boycot elections. Overturn political parties. Not only in America, but in all Europe and Asia as well (Africa anyway).

[August]

The system is deeply corrupt, beyond repair.

No it's not.

Don't vote. Boycot elections. Overturn political parties. Not only in America, but in all Europe and Asia as well (Africa anyway).

What a lovely idea. Let the 5% fringe who will vote for their candidate regardless decide the election.

[Hottentot]

Not voting is like telling the current government: "keep up the good work, I don't care either way". Writing "Batman" to the ballot makes much more sense if you want to protest.

[Skybird]

Not voting is like telling the current government: "keep up the good work, I don't care either way". Writing "Batman" to the ballot makes much more sense if you want to protest.
I thought like that myself, some time ago, but then decided against it. Becasue that way you help to push up the official number for voter participation, by that increaing the legitimiation of the system, no matter your "vote". And that is what it is about for the establishement: to keep the system alive, no matter what you vote for, as long as you just vote and legitimate the system itself by that. For a government it is more difficult to hide and argue agaisnt a low voter turnout. And if those 95% of non-voters, in August's example, would turn against any formed up government by not only not having voted, but punishing it with strict civil disobedience, the givenrment simply has nothing to govern.

Giving an invalid ballot is a form of tolerating the system, even when you are against it. It makes no saense, and compromises your own stand and argument. That why those living by the system want you to vote anyhow, at all cost, no matter what.

[August]

And if those 95% of non-voters, in August's example, would turn against any formed up government by not only not having voted, but punishing it with strict civil disobedience, the givenrment simply has nothing to govern.

Yeah thanks for the idea Skybird but I don't think we'll be following your advice. Unlike perhaps in your country our government is not some separate entity from the people, our government belongs to us so to punish it, is in effect, to punish ourselves.

[tater]

I did not got that spam mail, but your replacing of names immediately came to my mind when reading the starting post's message. Bush junior not only got elected - he even got elected TWICE. Making the same mistake even twice - what does that tell me about an electorate?

And every couple of years voluntarily agreeing to make the same silly show circus about choosing between plague and cholera - how is about that, what does that tell me about an electorate...?

It wasn't a mistake, it was an election. Europe has "mistakenly" (from the POV of a large % of American voters) elected socialists for decades (since we forced some of you at gunpoint to have different governments than your people liked to pick for themselves). Should you change your system to correct this obvious problem?

The EC is codified in the Constitution. It cannot change without agreement of 2/3 of BOTH houses of Congress, and ratification by 3/4 of all the States. It will NEVER happen since more that 25% of States are smaller, and benefit from increased attention. What would happen with popular vote, is a concentration on a subset of highly populous States. There would be no reason for candidates to even campaign in smaller States. No reason for them to both with any "local" issues except those in NY, MA, CA, and a few more urban areas. Having to field a candidate that will have to score some smaller states to win means moderation—centrism—which is good.

For all the talk of polarization, people abroad need to realize that the "red" states (the backwards color assignment POs me, the left should be "red") are often red by 1%, or "really red" by 10%. Ditto the "blue" states.

Might as well talk about legislating the tides.

[Growler]

Might as well talk about legislating the tides.

The tides at least make sense toward regulating the weather. Popular media in this country has opposition views being on par with an unsupervised pedophile in a daycare center.

[Tchocky]

The EC is codified in the Constitution. It cannot change without agreement of 2/3 of BOTH houses of Congress, and ratification by 3/4 of all the States. It will NEVER happen since more that 25% of States are smaller, and benefit from increased attention. What would happen with popular vote, is a concentration on a subset of highly populous States. There would be no reason for candidates to even campaign in smaller States. No reason for them to both with any "local" issues except those in NY, MA, CA, and a few more urban areas. Having to field a candidate that will have to score some smaller states to win means moderation—centrism—which is good.

Wouldn't think the smaller states would mind, to be honest. They're already winning the over-representation battle with the 2-Senators-per rule.

[August]

Wouldn't think the smaller states would mind, to be honest. They're already winning the over-representation battle with the 2-Senators-per rule.

Nah I think they would indeed mind a lot.

But guys, how many millions of taxpayers money is worth fixing a problem that has already been fixed via existing legislation? Constitutional conventions are not cheap y'know.

[Hottentot]

Giving an invalid ballot is a form of tolerating the system, even when you are against it. It makes no saense, and compromises your own stand and argument. That why those living by the system want you to vote anyhow, at all cost, no matter what.

It appears we are talking about two different things. My point concerned a bad government mostly. If you oppose the policies of a government but don't vote at all just because, for example, you can't find "the lesser evil" candidate, then the old government will probably just think everything is OK and everyone is happy with them. As far as I know, the policitians are optimists. They don't usually stop and think "hey guys, we're doing it all wrong". That's what they need the opposition for, no matter in what form.

Whereas, if I understood correctly from that quote, your point is more about the democratic system and the mistakes in it. In that case opposing the system by not participating at all seems more valid for me too. But so far I have nothing against the system itself, so I didn't think it that way.

[Sailor Steve]

Wouldn't think the smaller states would mind, to be honest. They're already winning the over-representation battle with the 2-Senators-per rule.
As I have explained elsewhere, that representation was the issue that tied up the Constitutional Convention for months, and very nearly wrecked the whole thing. Though the preamble says "We the People" and not "We the States", it was in fact the States who sent delegates to the Convention, and their biggest fear was losing their autonomy to an overlord "Master" government.

The larger states wanted proportional representation, and the smaller states objected on the grounds that the large states would dominate everything. The smaller states wanted one representative for each state, as they felt that would make each state equal. The large states of course objected to that on the grounds that they had more people, and it was the people who would be represented.

After several months of wrangling, backbiting, backstabbing and some delegates even walking out, the current system was eventually agreed upon. The idea is that the Representatives represent the people, and are elected by the people of their district, while the Senators represent the States, and are appointed by the state legislatures. That was changed in 1913 by the Seventeenth Amendment, so the Senators are now elected by the people of their state.

[Skybird]

Yeah thanks for the idea Skybird but I don't think we'll be following your advice.
Checking the statistics of elections of the past century I see that between 45 and 70% mof your citizen allowed by age to vote, did not vote at presidential election. And Midterm elections usually only around athird of your legitmited citizens is voting, two thirds are not.

Unlike perhaps in your country our government is not some separate entity from the people, our government belongs to us so to punish it, is in effect, to punish ourselves.
I forgot that you belong to those persons that cannot see the diffedrence between themselves anmd other persons or organisation. Sorry for that. It is written in your holy historic papers that it shgall be like oyu said, so it must be like that. You also have juristic holy papers saying that crime is forbidden, that's why you have no crime in America.

Why do you even maintain a police? :88)

[Skybird]

It appears we are talking about two different things. My point concerned a bad government mostly. If you oppose the policies of a government but don't vote at all just because, for example, you can't find "the lesser evil" candidate, then the old government will probably just think everything is OK and everyone is happy with them. As far as I know, the policitians are optimists. They don't usually stop and think "hey guys, we're doing it all wrong". That's what they need the opposition for, no matter in what form.

Whereas, if I understood correctly from that quote, your point is more about the democratic system and the mistakes in it. In that case opposing the system by not participating at all seems more valid for me too. But so far I have nothing against the system itself, so I didn't think it that way.


Legitimising a corrupted, lobby-infiltrated regime by expressing acceptance of its self-maintaining rules by going to vot, no matter for whom you vote, IS the decisive error to me. Politicians and private business should be kept strictly separate, instead you see private business massively lobbying in politcs, bypassing decisons of the electorate, tialroiung lawsd in their favour and against the electorate'S intewrst, and by that claiming a power for themselves that they have not been given any democratic legitimation by the electorate at all.

I also say since years that the functionality of democarcy depends on the size of communities it should administrate. And the system size represented by current national sates, not to mention globally acting business parties, are beyond the reach of control by democratic gremia, I am now sure.

The bigger the community/system, the more corruption, the better chances for lobbyng againstt he interest of the many, the less monitoring overview and ability to govern competently, the more chance to erode democracy and to deceive the electorate.

The smaller the community/system, the smaller the chance of corruption remaining undiscovered, the lesser, the smnaller the chance for lobbying remaining undiscovered, the easier to oversee the whole and to make cpompoetent decisions, the smaller the chances to bypass the rules and to erode them.

Two conditions I nowadays see as inevitable for a functioning democracy: every citizen must be able to oversee the whole, and to see the consequences of what every other person doing, and how these conseqwuences are effecting himself. And second, everybody being elected to make decisons and influence the whole, shall have no right to escape the conseuqnces of his decisons, and is to be held repsonsbile in full for his decisions. No immunity. No special legal status for governments. No manager allowed to not be personally liable for his decisions in office, with his personal property.

We have not a single real democracy in the West, they are all hijacked by oliogarchic family clans, poltiical parties who put their own power interest above state reason and the interest of the community, and business lobbies. It's a constantly ongoing coup d'etat. Its organised crime, dressed in democratically coloured cloathes. But its just mimikry.

You guys, especially August, should not be trusting so blindly. You get sold and wasted. Trust is kind. Cintrol, is better. But you are not in control. Tiome after time you bring members from the same person'S group to power. The names chnage, but the structures stay ther same. The powerinterest stay the same. The lobby interest stay the same. You are so porud if you chase somebody out of office. But in fact the laughs are on you. You play the lesser game. You let them play the big game - at your cost, and at the costs of your children.

You are cheap to have.

[Hottentot]

Uh, you do realize that I just pointed out a different opinion due to different perspective. And that I actually agreed with you when I thought I better saw where you are coming from. Right? And now I'm suddenly part of "you guys"? That's the most I could make out of that.

Well high five, August? Or something...

[Bilge_Rat]

The Electoral College is an anachronism that should be replaced, but will not be. Its because of the EC that Bush became president in 2000 even though Gore got 500,000 more votes nationwide.

Meanwhile early polls have Obama beating Palin 55 to 33 and beating Romney 47 to 40, so I dont think the EC will be a factor in 2012...:salute:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46474.html

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJpoll121510.pdf

[Gammelpreusse]

I thought like that myself, some time ago, but then decided against it. Becasue that way you help to push up the official number for voter participation, by that increaing the legitimiation of the system, no matter your "vote". And that is what it is about for the establishement: to keep the system alive, no matter what you vote for, as long as you just vote and legitimate the system itself by that. For a government it is more difficult to hide and argue agaisnt a low voter turnout. And if those 95% of non-voters, in August's example, would turn against any formed up government by not only not having voted, but punishing it with strict civil disobedience, the givenrment simply has nothing to govern.

Giving an invalid ballot is a form of tolerating the system, even when you are against it. It makes no saense, and compromises your own stand and argument. That why those living by the system want you to vote anyhow, at all cost, no matter what.


Yeah, some time ago I thought exactly like you. But then I told myself that everybody can moan and whine and boycott. Not a lot of effort involved, either. So instead of going on with the easy way out, I joined a party and now try to involve myself, to make a little difference here and there. It may be not much, but it certainly is better then shaking fists all the time over a system that does not suffer from systematic structural failures, but too much cynicism and not enough idealism and people willing to lift a finger for it. The same kind of problem every system composed of humans has after a while no matter how well constructed it is.

[August]

Why do you even maintain a police? :88)

German spies. :yep:

[joegrundman]

I think skybird has an exaggeratedly idealised notion of what it is that is good about democracy, and an exaggerated notion of what it means to withhold your vote in a democracy

[Skybird]

Yeah, some time ago I thought exactly like you. But then I told myself that everybody can moan and whine and boycott. Not a lot of effort involved, either. So instead of going on with the easy way out, I joined a party and now try to involve myself, to make a little difference here and there. It may be not much, but it certainly is better then shaking fists all the time over a system that does not suffer from systematic structural failures, but too much cynicism and not enough idealism and people willing to lift a finger for it. The same kind of problem every system composed of humans has after a while no matter how well constructed it is.

20 years ago or so I was for a short time member of the CDU as well. After just one year and having seen all the internal Seilsachaften at work, I was healed that idealism you are expressing. You cannot move anything in a party without ppower. And you cannot come to power in a party if you do not follow it'S written and unqwritten rules, makes deals with other peole pushing their careers, and allow to get corrupted yourself.

Parties and work inside them and from them, does not solve probölems. Political parties are one of the most dominant reasons why these proiblems even exist. They should be forbidden, immediately. No member of parliament should be allowed to be member of a political party, religious group or economic lobby.

You probbaly know the German saying "Politicians solve prohblems that without them would not even exist".

Right that.

Loose connection but anyhow:
For you, and those who understand German:
http://www.welt.de/debatte/henryk-m-broder/article11552322/Wir-brauchen-totale-Transparenz-in-der-Politik.html

[Skybird]

I think skybird has an exaggeratedly idealised notion of what it is that is good about democracy, and an exaggerated notion of what it means to withhold your vote in a democracy
I think I have a realistic idea of how strong egoism is working in man, and that man is neither reasonable, nor altruistic by design. And because that is so, I distrust both Communism and Democracy. Both could only work for a population of Vulcans. But humans...?

-> How to fail in survival for very rational reasons (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=159065)

[tater]

Parties and work inside them and from them, does not solve probölems. Political parties are one of the most dominant reasons why these proiblems even exist. They should be forbidden, immediately. No member of parliament should be allowed to be member of a political party, religious group or economic lobby.

Ah, totalitarianism.

That IS what you suggest. You are in favor of disallowing people to freely associate with each other based on thought.

That is the gist of what you have suggested in practice.

[Gammelpreusse]

I think I have a realistic idea of how strong egoism is working in man, and that man is neither reasonable, nor altruistic by design. And because that is so, I distrust both Communism and Democracy. Both could only work for a population of Vulcans. But humans...?

-> How to fail in survival for very rational reasons (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=159065)

Throwing democracy and communism in together is quite a stretch. And to be honest, I rather have idiots in governments that I can vote out then having idiots in government I can't vote out. A bit of choice is better then no choice.

And as far as corruptions goes, I can't see much difference between any system that yet emerged in the course of human history. Corruption and what you call "Seilschaften" are basic to human nature. You are entirely right that these exist through all layers of current society, and that you have to get involved with these groups to gain any kind of influence. But when was that ever different? And how could that ever be changed unless you genetically engineer people so that they all think alike? The communists attempted that, the Nazis tried that as well. All it achieved was immense suffering without rooting the problems out. All it achieved is that they became what they wanted to root out in the first place.
There will never be any kind of system without these "problems", they only contract or expand relative to the number of ppl involved, that is true to villages as much as international organizations. Maybe your problem is that you simply expect too much of humanity, and maybe expect too many ppl to think like you do, without any willingness to adjust your own way of thinking to the way of others. This always is a two way street and essential to a working community.

[Platapus]

Not voting is like telling the current government: "keep up the good work, I don't care either way". Writing "Batman" to the ballot makes much more sense if you want to protest.


No, not voting means that you are either too dumb to understand the issues or are too lazy to make up your own mind, or have no interest in making our governmental system work.

I am an election official and I can tell you that "batman" votes accomplish nothing. They are not a protest, no one cares, nothing will change. It just shows that you are kinda dumb actually.

If you want to protest, try to do some research and find a way to protest that may actually accomplish something.

[Tchocky]

If I were registered to vote, I'd send these clowns a message by staying home on election day and dressing up like a clown.

[Skybird]

Platapus,

No, voting means that you are either too dumb to understand the issues or are too lazy to use your own mind, or have no interest in creating a chance of replacing a rotten and corrupted governmental system that sees lobbies and "Seilschaften" in power and control and the electgorate's will being minimised - by money.

You are an election official and thus you should be able to tell us that voting the same parties over and over accomplishes nothing than keeping this rotten system alive, and keeping the same corrputed types of characters in control. They are not m akiung a difference, no one cares, nothing will change. It just shows that you are kinda dumb actually.

If you want to chnage something, think outside the wanted established ölanes that ar designed to make sure that the basis of the power for the establishement does not get put into question. Try to do some research and find a way to convince others and theyx convionce their freidns, and tghese convince theirs - until you are a majority strong enough to enforce disloayalt to the established power factions and civil disobedience is being run by so many people that those profiting from maintaining the status quo of power politics can no longer maintain their personal power agendas and their secret quzest to make their own benefits and profits and powers everlasting, at the cost of the nation, the people and the next generations.

If you stay loyal to corrupted people, you become an accomplice yourself. If you help to keep structures allowing and ecouraging the corruption of power and the tailoring of the legislation to protect this, you become an accomplice. And if you risk your own head for defending those corrupted elites that dominate your nation since decades and errect a global network of conmtrol and dominance, then you become also an accomplice, yes, but even more important is that you act - dumb.

Find something more useful than helping organised crime, if you want to help your people and serve them. Thneir are many opportunities to do so which are needed, and noble and honourable. I did that, too. And sure as hell it was no work for a political party - because by doing that, you do not collect merits, but shame.

[Gammelpreusse]

Platapus,

No, voting means that you are either too dumb to understand the issues or are too lazy to use your own mind, or have no interest in creating a chance of replacing a rotten and corrupted governmental system that sees lobbies and "Seilschaften" in power and control and the electgorate's will being minimised - by money.

You are an election official and thus you should be able to tell us that voting the same parties over and over accomplishes nothing than keeping this rotten system alive, and keeping the same corrputed types of characters in control. They are not m akiung a difference, no one cares, nothing will change. It just shows that you are kinda dumb actually.

If you want to chnage something, think outside the wanted established ölanes that ar designed to make sure that the basis of the power for the establishement does not get put into question. Try to do some research and find a way to convince others and theyx convionce their freidns, and tghese convince theirs - until you are a majority strong enough to enforce disloayalt to the established power factions and civil disobedience is being run by so many people that those profiting from maintaining the status quo of power politics can no longer maintain their personal power agendas and their secret quzest to make their own benefits and profits and powers everlasting, at the cost of the nation, the people and the next generations.

If you stay loyal to corrupted people, you become an accomplice yourself. If you help to keep structures allowing and ecouraging the corruption of power and the tailoring of the legislation to protect this, you become an accomplice. And if you risk your own head for defending those corrupted elites that dominate your nation since decades and errect a global network of conmtrol and dominance, then you become also an accomplice, yes, but even more important is that you act - dumb.

Find something more useful than helping organised crime, if you want to help your people and serve them. Thneir are many opportunities to do so which are needed, and noble and honourable. I did that, too. And sure as hell it was no work for a political party - because by doing that, you do not collect merits, but shame.

And then? All you manage to do by that, in the unlikely case you are successful with that, is to create another establishment, and the whole game begins anew. And 60 or 70 years later another Skybird comes along. Hardly lots of perspective offered by that.

[Skybird]

Throwing democracy and communism in together is quite a stretch.
Is it? Both fail for the same reason, and that is what I said: both can only function if man were reasonable, logical and altruistic. By thre satte of the world and the goping of hisotry as far as I am aware of it, there is no way I can conclude that we are like that. Communism failed - except in very small communities. Demcoarcy failed, and until todsay gets corrupted sooner or later, time and again. I made the argument before that democratic poriunciples work only if the community size is not beyond a certain mark. So, community size deciding functionality is another thing that in my thinking democracy anmd communism have in common.

And to be honest, I rather have idiots in governments that I can vote out then having idiots in government I can't vote out. A bit of choice is better then no choice.


Well, can you really? They seem to be coming back more often then they stay away. They fall the ladder upwards when being kicked. Institutions,. ranks and offices get created to give them a new job and prestgigve - often with more payment than before. And even if it is not the case, the guy coming after them is fro mt he same breed, the same stable, he features the same thinking patterns and personbal characteristics that made hiom suviving the ego-battle of candidates, and he basically expresses the same views and things within the same established borders and limits, and certainly, like all other in all political parties and the established power structure, he does use the same endlessly repeated paroles and demands and promises and fairy tales - including that you should vote for him or for his opponent - no matter what you vote, the show itself runs on in very much the same way. Endlessly.

Names and faces come and go, but the type of person behind them always seems to be the same. Maybe becasue it is the political parties who make sure that nobody else gets through. That'S why I would ban all political parties. In an elected parliament, there shall be no/zero/nada three-line whiup (obligation to vote in acorandace with party policies), nor should parties decide about candidates. Parties simply shall have no place in parliaments. No partgies, no lobbies, to business representation that bypasses the legitimation by the electorate. The German constitution, in article 38, even hints at this, saying they are only subordinate to their own conscience - not to orders of any kind. No obligational party loyalty. No representing of lobby desires. Not even the red line of a consistent faction policy or agenda of any kind. What that means, is clear: Individual, personal weighing of one's decision, free from any pressure of others, judged only by one'S own stnamdards of conscience. The text does not say reasonabilty, or logic, or conmvixction, or argument - it says "conscience"

But in American houseses as wellas the German houses, this is so rare that newspapers print headlines when a vote indeed was free, and even then you know that much lobby works has manipulated, and moved money and influence in the background. the norm, the everday norm is that you have politivcians thinking of their own career chances, of their next reelection, and of what thje party wants them to vote for, so that the party wins the vote. When you have fourty times as many lobbyists than members of parliament in a capital who additonally all are members of a party and want to maintain their own careers, then the air starts to smell rotten.

Change by election? Change from within a party? I rather believe in Santa Claus again.

Amongst others things, I once was engaged in a citizens initiave against a mosque being increased over here. Parties told us we should stop. Two said, they agreed with our cause to stop it, but that it is better to not raise controversy that would prevent a "future" state-wide solution of a general issue. In other words: they did not want to attract negative attention that could raise additonal risks for their next election chances. We ignored them,. and I was one of those waliign from door to door and trying to engage people in debates about Islam and whitewashed migration failures. Not much we achieved at the housedoors, but we nevertheless achieved somethign at court: we won. The property sale was reversed, the other side was prioven to have lied and forging it'S identity.

Why I am telling this story (once again)? Simply this

No blockhead too lazy to think for himself and just following traditional preferences and old paroles written on old pergaments and patterns he has repeated often before by habit (not you is meant, but somebody else having posted here) tells me that by deciding not to vote and refusing to legitimate a criminal system automatically translates into laziness and lacking will to stand up for something and take a risk of getting my nose burnt. I vote by not voting for parties and their game rules. I vote againmst them by doing so. That is my vote, and that of a growing number of people. As a nice side-effect I have more right to criticise those I did not vote for, becasue I never supported them anyway, and never brought them to power, and that way I remain more free of moral guilt than some others. You cannot become an accomplice in crime, and afterwards complain that it was done. And many don'T do that. They solve the resulting cognitive dissonance by hiding deeper and deeper in their self-justifications. I just remind of the foul excuses for the Iraq war - some of which are still being believed by some until today, and endlessly repeated until today - altough they have been proven wrong from A to Z.

[Skybird]

And then? All you manage to do by that, in the unlikely case you are successful with that, is to create another establishment, and the whole game begins anew. And 60 or 70 years later another Skybird comes along. Hardly lots of perspective offered by that.
No guarantee for imprvements, I said that myself somewhere above, just a chance. But that chance is more than staying with the status quo that now is established - and which means guarantee to fail to move beyond it, which I see not as optional, but as vital.

A wise man said there is nothing new under sun, expoect what has been forgotten meanwhile. It seems to me that we donot really learn important new things, we indeed make the same mistakes over and over again, over millenia, it seems. We just collect some more technical skills. But the mind handling the nuclear bomb today is still that of the Neanderthaler swinging his speer or club.

Anyhow, to me it is "small chance" versus "no chance". "Small chance" seems to offer slightly more chances than "no chance", so - my choice recommends itself to me.

I know two lovely little ladies 5 and 8 years old, and it is their fate I have in mind. They are dear to me, but I fear for their good future, for my heart holds well-meant hopes - but my head knows some things better.

[August]

No guarantee for imprvements, I said that myself somewhere above, just a chance.

Destabilizing our country for a chance of achieving some nebulous Utopian goal, without even a guarantee of improvement doesn't exactly promote confidence in your plan Skybird.

[Hottentot]

No, not voting means that you are either too dumb to understand the issues or are too lazy to make up your own mind, or have no interest in making our governmental system work.

I am an election official and I can tell you that "batman" votes accomplish nothing. They are not a protest, no one cares, nothing will change. It just shows that you are kinda dumb actually.

If you want to protest, try to do some research and find a way to protest that may actually accomplish something.

Voting is asking the people to tell their opinion. The best way to protest in voting would be to find a candidate that stands against the things you want to protest against.


However, when Finland will have elections soon, I'm (at least at the moment it seems so) still going to vote Batman. Why? Because I have done research. I don't like the major parties, so I won't vote them. Then there are the smaller parties. One of them is very prominent and it is speculated that most of the protest votes are going to them. Some people I know have said that they are going to vote for this party just because it gives a message that the people want change.


I'm not going to vote that party either, because yes, they stand for change, but no, their change isn't the kind of change I want. I know you can't always find a perfect party and I agree with them on some issues as well, but I don't want to vote for something that I also clearly oppose. Moreover I don't trust them: anyone can run their mouth from the opposition and find problems in the current system, but I'm still waiting for them to prove they'll get results too. The other minor parties, on the other hand, are too much into "we care about this one single thing in the society and anything else is not relevant for us" thinking for my liking.


The elections are still some time away, but if they were to be held now, I would vote for Batman. I don't want to give a message that I support the current government even enough to not care either way, so I'm going to vote. But neither do I want to vote something I don't actually support just because it's "change" or "different" or whatever. It's doesn't even have to be a protest, it is an opinion. And that's what they wanted when they decided to hold elections.


If my opinion is not that of the majority and, for example, this prominent new party is going to get elected, then so be it. That's democracy. But I'm not going to boycott democracy just because I don't like the current parties or candidates.

[Skybird]

Destabilizing our country for a chance of achieving some nebulous Utopian goal, without even a guarantee of improvement doesn't exactly promote confidence in your plan Skybird.
If you wouldn'T quote out of context, then you would need to admit that I also said that not tackliung the system guarantees collapse, and that a small chance is still a little bit more than no chance. This morning I have just quick-read over the latest reports from Wikileaks, proving how underhanded European space technology companies handle the Galileo project, how wide the gap is between what the politicians tell the public what it is about ("European soveriegnity"), while at the same time trying to somehwat sell it to America and let it fall under deci8sive American influence, further how destructive French influence is at EADS, trying to ruin healthy cooperating technology branches in order to brin g them under French cóntrol while German tax payers are being told fairy tales by their own politicians in order to make them pay their taxmoney into these planned-to-be-"Franceliased" key companies. Some days ago, there was Wikileaks with quotes about how American big lobbyists pump enomous sums of money into the Republican party to make its representatives act the opposite way than what it promised during the last election campaign, or to hide certain industrial decisons from the public - what you don'T know, you cannot form a voting decision on.

Just more examples from France, Germany and America that show how very much legitmitate my deep mistrust for this system is, that does no longer see independence and split between policy for the community, and private lobby intersts by business that bypasses the electorate'S voting processes by bribery, and does its best to make the distinction between business and policy represents disappear more and more.

It'S all a show act. And you willingly buy it, because your historic documents outlined a system that was meant to be extremely different, and therefore you like it (and I do, too! ;) ). You just don't get that the corrupt reality and the historic intent are lightyears apart, while I see the difference in all its depressing gloom.

If you are in a hopeless loss-loss situation, anything, even just small chances, is better than just to stay put.

It'S also about inherent problems that are of a more psychological nature, and that make us deciding for our doom with the brightest logical reasons on mind. I tried to summarise these thinking patterns and their illustrations in reality in that compressed piece I entitled How to fail in survival for very rational reasons (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=159065) . We repeat eon-old mistakes that already have destroyed many cultures before us - and most of them had good ideas on why they actively decided for their doom.

[Gammelpreusse]

Is it? Both fail for the same reason, and that is what I said: both can only function if man were reasonable, logical and altruistic. By thre satte of the world and the goping of hisotry as far as I am aware of it, there is no way I can conclude that we are like that. Communism failed - except in very small communities. Demcoarcy failed, and until todsay gets corrupted sooner or later, time and again. I made the argument before that democratic poriunciples work only if the community size is not beyond a certain mark. So, community size deciding functionality is another thing that in my thinking democracy anmd communism have in common.

Seriously, Skybird, whom have you ever met to full fill all categories of reason, logic and altruism? Us both certainly do not belong to that, and neither does anybody else I know of. Besides, it is not that the only other big alternative to communism and democracy, fascism, presented any better outlook. There probably was no greater time of corruption in this country then at that time. They were just better at Propaganda and that only because this system existed for roughly 8 years only. Communism in it's beginning in the SU had similar successes before the system became so encrusted nothing moved on anymore. That is what happens with static systems.

Besides, I contest your words that working democracy is size dependent. I grew up in a village and you have the same kind of personal connection based power politics there as on the big stage. The only difference is the number of effected people, but you can guess yourself what happens if we cut down the democratic process to small communities. That's a return to Kleinstaaterei which will make any long term planning and over regional planning near, if not completely, impossible. Luftschlösser is what I would call that, even though I completely undertstand where you are coming from.

IF there is a way out of the mess we live in, then it is a Wikileaks inspired system of total transparency. Everything must be laid out to the open, every political debate and backroom debate must be protocolled and published. But even then it relies on people to actually read it. How many people do you know that watch, for example, Bundestag debates on "Phoenix"? Granted, most of what is debated there is based on populism and slurs at the other party, but to come to that opinion you have to watch it in the first place before you are able to come to a founded opinion. Reading "Bild" or all those dismal debates the likes of "Maybrit Illner" does not cut it.



Well, can you really? They seem to be coming back more often then they stay away. They fall the ladder upwards when being kicked. Institutions,. ranks and offices get created to give them a new job and prestgigve - often with more payment than before. And even if it is not the case, the guy coming after them is fro mt he same breed, the same stable, he features the same thinking patterns and personbal characteristics that made hiom suviving the ego-battle of candidates, and he basically expresses the same views and things within the same established borders and limits, and certainly, like all other in all political parties and the established power structure, he does use the same endlessly repeated paroles and demands and promises and fairy tales - including that you should vote for him or for his opponent - no matter what you vote, the show itself runs on in very much the same way. Endlessly. You are entirely right here, but what makes you think this would work any different in any given other system? I used to hate this behavior just as much as you do, but frankly, it works this way everywhere. In the economy, in the military, in every community. It was this way in communism, in fashism, in feudalism, in absolutism...heck, what makes you think this will ever change? It sucks, but it is reality. Idealism and trying to improve on what we have can't work with too much naivety involved. As an individual you can always make only so much impact, which also, imho, is a good thing, as I yet have to meet somebody that really is capable to really cater to everybody's needs. Grand ideas and plans are mostly pretty illusionary.


Names and faces come and go, but the type of person behind them always seems to be the same. Maybe becasue it is the political parties who make sure that nobody else gets through. That'S why I would ban all political parties. In an elected parliament, there shall be no/zero/nada three-line whiup (obligation to vote in acorandace with party policies), nor should parties decide about candidates. Parties simply shall have no place in parliaments. No partgies, no lobbies, to business representation that bypasses the legitimation by the electorate. The German constitution, in article 38, even hints at this, saying they are only subordinate to their own conscience - not to orders of any kind. No obligational party loyalty. No representing of lobby desires. Not even the red line of a consistent faction policy or agenda of any kind. What that means, is clear: Individual, personal weighing of one's decision, free from any pressure of others, judged only by one'S own stnamdards of conscience. The text does not say reasonabilty, or logic, or conmvixction, or argument - it says "conscience"Abandoning all parties is an interesting idea. Care to elaborate on your thinking what should replace them? Be aware that even if you ban official parties, people will stand band together to have a greater impact. I doubt those will fluctuate based on the topic, as most people value community more then individual opinion. Only outsiders to common society will find themselves deciding on a case to case basis.


Lobbies will stick, no matter what. Those simply are groups of people with a lot of interest in certain directions politics take. These are essential to democracies, as they provide a lot of input to what certain people actually want. Good examples for that would be driver associations, sports or even unions or entrepreneurs. But I think it makes a lot of sense to ban lobbyism not based on individual interests bundled together, but companies or general bodies that are not considered a "person" on a legal basis. Basically all bodies that do not have voting rights in themselves.




But in American houseses as wellas the German houses, this is so rare that newspapers print headlines when a vote indeed was free, and even then you know that much lobby works has manipulated, and moved money and influence in the background. the norm, the everday norm is that you have politivcians thinking of their own career chances, of their next reelection, and of what thje party wants them to vote for, so that the party wins the vote. When you have fourty times as many lobbyists than members of parliament in a capital who additonally all are members of a party and want to maintain their own careers, then the air starts to smell rotten.All very true. But again, what makes you think that will ever work differently? You basically want all people involved in politics based on high ideals and altruism. But to develop these traits you have to make certain experiences in life, based on certain educational values, all delivered by people believing in these themselves and capable to explain those to their students. Do not get me wrong, I am all on your side in this in principle, as I try to be this way myself, but how can you possibly expect others to behave this way with all people in this, or any other country having made their very own life experiences, some of which may vastly differ from our own and thus giving them a completely different outlook on life and society?


Change by election? Change from within a party? I rather believe in Santa Claus again.

Amongst others things, I once was engaged in a citizens initiave against a mosque being increased over here. Parties told us we should stop. Two said, they agreed with our cause to stop it, but that it is better to not raise controversy that would prevent a "future" state-wide solution of a general issue. In other words: they did not want to attract negative attention that could raise additonal risks for their next election chances. We ignored them,. and I was one of those waliign from door to door and trying to engage people in debates about Islam and whitewashed migration failures. Not much we achieved at the housedoors, but we nevertheless achieved somethign at court: we won. The property sale was reversed, the other side was prioven to have lied and forging it'S identity.

Why I am telling this story (once again)? Simply this

No blockhead too lazy to think for himself and just following traditional preferences and old paroles written on old pergaments and patterns he has repeated often before by habit (not you is meant, but somebody else having posted here) tells me that by deciding not to vote and refusing to legitimate a criminal system automatically translates into laziness and lacking will to stand up for something and take a risk of getting my nose burnt. I vote by not voting for parties and their game rules. I vote againmst them by doing so. That is my vote, and that of a growing number of people. As a nice side-effect I have more right to criticise those I did not vote for, becasue I never supported them anyway, and never brought them to power, and that way I remain more free of moral guilt than some others. You cannot become an accomplice in crime, and afterwards complain that it was done. And many don'T do that. They solve the resulting cognitive dissonance by hiding deeper and deeper in their self-justifications. I just remind of the foul excuses for the Iraq war - some of which are still being believed by some until today, and endlessly repeated until today - altough they have been proven wrong from A to Z.Ok, you made some disappointing experiences there, and I will accept that. I won't go into the topic here myself, but what you experienced is quite simply a majority forcing their will on a minority. That is how democracy works. Is that cool? no. Perfect? far from it? At times utterly unfair and demotivating? Undoubtedly. And yes, it IS dirty at times. But your very own observation that some people also still believe into Bushs lies, when it comes to american politics, just shows how much people do not think of their own and just buy into others. It's not any different here. Most people also simply lack the time to really bother with informing themselves and just rely on others.

Not make this complete. I very much agree to most of your criticism, but I do not see to get rid of that in a new system. I will simply form anew in other disguises, simply because ppl work that way. To prevent that you would have to establish an oppressive regime like in communism or fashism. And from expiriences so far, neither worked out very well.

As such Winston Churchill's quote "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." has as much value as "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

[Gammelpreusse]

No guarantee for imprvements, I said that myself somewhere above, just a chance. But that chance is more than staying with the status quo that now is established - and which means guarantee to fail to move beyond it, which I see not as optional, but as vital.

A wise man said there is nothing new under sun, expoect what has been forgotten meanwhile. It seems to me that we donot really learn important new things, we indeed make the same mistakes over and over again, over millenia, it seems. We just collect some more technical skills. But the mind handling the nuclear bomb today is still that of the Neanderthaler swinging his speer or club.

Anyhow, to me it is "small chance" versus "no chance". "Small chance" seems to offer slightly more chances than "no chance", so - my choice recommends itself to me.

I know two lovely little ladies 5 and 8 years old, and it is their fate I have in mind. They are dear to me, but I fear for their good future, for my heart holds well-meant hopes - but my head knows some things better.

In my mind you would do more to help them by making them understand that humans are mere animals living by instincts, that great ideals of the past always will be taken as granted, eventually, and as such neglected in the long run and that they will have to behave decent even in the light of others not behaving decent, without taking anger or disappointment from this observation. That is the difference between idealism and cyncism, the latter mostly born out of wrong pre assumptions about human behavior patterns. As I said before, a sytem change won't achieve anything due to your very own words that people tend to forget. And I whole heartily agree to that. Imho, that "small change" you are talking about is mere illusion. We have to work what we have with and that is not dependent on the set up of a system, but the ppl running the system, and the top dogs in any given system will eventually band together. Why? Because they will always be more able to relate to their colleagues in similar situations then the people following other activities. So the logical conclusion is that more people from other professions need to get into politics.
However, that requires their willingness to do so, and at least in Germany they rather stay at the sidelines and whine. I can't imagine a single system where your ambitions would work out if not for the active and willing participation of the people and frankly, even today's Republic offers a lot more chances for that then a lot of other nations, past and present. Even in Switzerland, a role model for direct democracy, this is not much different (though I am very much for "Volksentscheide" on the federal level in Germany as well, if open debates like the whole Stuttgart 21 affair is a given, not dump populism like it is often done in Switzerland.)

Btw, I have a 12 year old girl and a 15 year old boy, niece and nephew respectively, whom I am as much attached to in my motivation.

[August]

It'S all a show act. And you willingly buy it, because your historic documents outlined a system that was meant to be extremely different, and therefore you like it (and I do, too! ;) ). You just don't get that the corrupt reality and the historic intent are lightyears apart, while I see the difference in all its depressing gloom. I understand what you're saying Skybird, I just disagree with it. Maybe that makes me blind and stupid as you keep implying I am but you know what? I have a loving wife, great career, and a nice house. My many friends and acquaintances are all doing just fine too, life in America is great, always has for the past half century that i've lived here, so the way I see it your gloomy prognostications just have no basis in reality.

Now many of my fellow Americans here have been telling you pretty much the same thing. Are we ALL blind? Or is it just possible that you may not have as clear a picture of life in my country as you think you do?

[Skybird]

I understand what you're saying Skybird, I just disagree with it. Maybe that makes me blind and stupid as you keep implying I am but you know what? I have a loving wife, great career, and a nice house. My many friends and acquaintances are all doing just fine too, life in America is great, always has for the past half century that i've lived here, so the way I see it your gloomy prognostications just have no basis in reality.

Now many of my fellow Americans here have been telling you pretty much the same thing. Are we ALL blind? Or is it just possible that you may not have as clear a picture of life in my country as you think you do?

How many hundreds of thosuands have lost their existence in the past 2 years? How man of your fellow Americans would see it right the opposite way than you? Like in Europe, the gap between the rich and the poor is widening, with the social middle class seemingly being in decline. The top group gets smaller, but richer, the bottom groups gets bigger, but poorer.

We had a statistics thread on that three or four years ago, but I could not find it. I doubt the numbers from back then have turned for the better in the past two years.

And just for the record - I never said I think you are a stupid person. I just see you being very prone to generalisations and schemes of your social peer group. It's the lack of differentiated views that hits me sometimes. I often seem to see that in Americans. That'Sw hy I think of Americxa - as a joke - as a binary society, and - no joke - of dualistic extremes. This seems to foster the currently seen era of extreme political polarisation.

[Sailor Steve]

That'Sw hy I think of Americxa - as a joke - as a binary society, and - no joke - of dualistic extremes. This seems to foster the currently seen era of extreme political polarisation.
But that in itself is a generalisation. I, and many other Americans, see Germany as a lock-step nation whose members all thing in rigid, inflexible terms. Almost certainly not true, but the way we see other countries is often bound by our own prejudices.

It seems to me that you're judging us on your terms, not ours.

[tater]

Except there is no extreme polarization. The US is no more polarized than Federalists Vs Democratic Republicans back during the Adams admin.

What you see as lack of nuance we see as Adams and Jefferson might have seen things. Yeah, I'm binary about natural rights and liberty. When Americans cease to be we won't matter any more. Be glad some people on earth think in those terms as they are the last, best hope for liberty in the world.

[mookiemookie]

How many hundreds of thosuands have lost their existence in the past 2 years? How man of your fellow Americans would see it right the opposite way than you? Like in Europe, the gap between the rich and the poor is widening, with the social middle class seemingly being in decline. The top group gets smaller, but richer, the bottom groups gets bigger, but poorer.

We had a statistics thread on that three or four years ago, but I could not find it. I doubt the numbers from back then have turned for the better in the past two years.

And just for the record - I never said I think you are a stupid person. I just see you being very prone to generalisations and schemes of your social peer group. It's the lack of differentiated views that hits me sometimes. I often seem to see that in Americans. That'Sw hy I think of Americxa - as a joke - as a binary society, and - no joke - of dualistic extremes. This seems to foster the currently seen era of extreme political polarisation.

Sky, as much as it pains me to type this -

I agree with August. Yep, that's right. I agree with August.

Everyday life in America is not as bad as the media would have you believe. Are there people who have fallen on hard times? Sure. Is it like some sort of end of days, Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, post apocalyptic society with bands of bandits and packs of wild dogs roving the streets? No.

I consider myself middle class. I live in an apartment, drive a car that's about a year old, and I have enough money left over after paying the bills and putting some in savings to treat myself to a steak dinner if I want. Most everyone I know is in pretty much the same boat. I'm not fearful of losing my job. The hand wringing and calamity you see on TV? It's because people have been hit in the face with the reality that they can't *gasp* go out and buy stuff they couldn't afford to pay for in the first place! The media loves to blow stuff out of proportion - there's no story otherwise. If they reported on the reality of things, that life is going on pretty much as it always has, then there wouldn't be any reason to watch.

If you go out to bars, restaurants, movie theatres - they're full of people. The grocery stores are full. I still have to fight crowds of people at the shopping mall. Streets are busy. I don't know what kind of picture you're getting over there, but life for the average American is still pretty much okay.

[tater]

To add to what mookie just said, and perhaps it's my physics geek talking, but the economic world (personal) is like an inflating balloon (expanding universe metaphor, here).

So while there may be an expanding gap between rich and poor, I think the very definition is also changing. Before we moved to the foothills (a pretty posh part of town, I'll admit), we lived for ~15 years closer to the university. Some neighbors were college students, next door was a professor, a cop, and a family that owned a small furniture store, and some folks who were retired, etc. A totally "regular" neighborhood for Albuquerque, entirely typical. New construction homes here in ABQ that are quite cheap are as large as the house I grew up in (built in the 1950s, bought by my folks in '73 for ~53k$ I think).

There were BMWs in driveways, and all kinds of cars (usually 2 per house) that were new, and not cheap.

Where I grew up—in the 1970s and early 80s—most people had cheaper cars as a % of their home values. Where I grew up is one of the richest little towns in the US (in Fairfield County, Connecticut). It was "rich" when I went to school, too, but people didn't have the same stuff that even lower middle class people have NOW. The baseline is higher than it used to be. Now everyone—even kids—have cell phones. Everyone has computers. Everyone has cable (we never had cable as kids, even though it was around). Middle class people have nicer kitchens than my mom ever had when I grew up—and again, we were very well off. In the early 80s, only "rich" people had those brick-sized cell phones, and damn few of those, even. A cell phone is NOT a necessity. I spent most of my life without one forced into the "hardship" of making calls from home, or my office.

If living like it was 1975 is living "poor" then I grew up poor—which is ridiculous. I grew up very well off—we just had far less "stuff" than people now (and they certainly get more than enough to eat as any walk through walmart will show).

[August]

Is it like some sort of end of days, Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, post apocalyptic society with bands of bandits and packs of wild dogs roving the streets? No.

Well you did mean outside of Detroit and some parts of LA right? :DL

[mookiemookie]

Well you did mean outside of Detroit and some parts of LA right? :DL

:rotfl2::yeah:

[Penguin]

I, and many other Americans, see Germany as a lock-step nation whose members all thing in rigid, inflexible terms.

You are much, much closer to the truth than you might think

(sorry, the German - and the english learner - in me has to correct spelling mistakes ;))

[Sailor Steve]

(sorry, the German - and the english learner - in me has to correct spelling mistakes ;))
And I thang you for the corecshun. My grandmother was from Germany, and I tend to check and double-check everything I write. Some things slip through the cracks, though.

I also tend to grind my teeth every time I see someone cross the street against the lights, though I don't complain about crossing in the middle of a block. My lock-step seems to be selective.

[heartc]

I also tend to grind my teeth every time I see someone cross the street against the lights, [...].

That's funny. Because I tend to make it a point to walk across a deserted street against the lights - as a homage to one of my granduncles who emigrated to the US a hundred years ago or so...and because I'm in a hurry most of the time... - instead of attending in "ACHTUNG!" until the proper light comes on. But I only do that when no car is within relevant visible range, so as not to irritate the driver, AND when there are no children around.

Though I remember one day, there was some 6 year old boy waiting across the street and I didn't see him at first, because he was standing partly behind his mom. I then saw him when I was coming up, and I was like
"Oh ****." And, as it goes of course, he was watching me and was saying something to his mom, which I didn't hear because I was still too far away. But when I went past them, I heard his mom saying "...yes, and that's why one day HE'LL BE HIT BY A TRUCK!" ...
I thought, "Oh, thank you very much for your good wishes", but I felt really guilty, so I turned around and said "You know what, your Mom got it right, I'm pretty stupid."

So, if I stop posting here for a prolonged period of time...you know what happened. ;)

OTH, only a few weeks ago, shortly before Christmas, I was shopping for presents when two parents next to me jaywalked the red light on an *active* street. Their two children were some 5 meters behind them, which they seemed to have been unaware of, and then started RUNNING after their parents when they saw them crossing the street. Just in that moment, a car was coming around the corner pretty fast and I just barely grabbed the kids or they most probably WOULD have been hit.

So I just hope that one mom's curse might be lifted now. ;-)

[August]

Well if I can safely cross the road without affecting vehicle traffic then i'm not waiting for some stupid light to give me permission first.

On the other hand I don't see my jay walking as some kind of in your face political protest but rather just a common sense decision based on the reality of the situation.

[The Third Man]

This pretty much sums up the state of the electorate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19v5Kjmc8FI


ROGULSKI: Why are you here?

WOMAN #1: To get some money.

ROGULSKI: What kind of money?

WOMAN #1: Obama money.

ROGULSKI: Where's it coming from?

WOMAN #1: Obama.

ROGULSKI: And where did Obama get it?

WOMAN #1: I don't know, his stash. I don't know. (laughter) I don't know where he got it from, but he givin' it to us, to help us.

WOMAN #2: And we love him.

WOMAN #1: We love him. That's why we voted for him!

WOMEN: (chanting) Obama! Obama! Obama! (laughing)

[CaptainHaplo]

TTM - if that summed up the electorate - why is it that the Dems and Obama lost big this last mid-term?

[The Third Man]

TTM - if that summed up the electorate - why is it that the Dems and Obama lost big this last mid-term?

anomaly

[Penguin]

And I thang you for the corecshun. My grandmother was from Germany, and I tend to check and double-check everything I write. Some things slip through the cracks, though.


I thong you for your thangs! Seems like there is no escape from genetics, lol


I also tend to grind my teeth every time I see someone cross the street against the lights, though I don't complain about crossing in the middle of a block. My lock-step seems to be selective.

I do cross red lights only in front of kids - someone has to show them that there are wrongdoers in the world ! just kidding (or not?;))



back to the slightly off-topic: I do think that german society is still maybe not lock-step, but more lockdown - in the wikipedia definition, meaning "restriction of progression" The folks here still do give more feces here about hierarchies and titles than in other countries. Especially when doing business, the people here tend to be more unflexible. Not even mentioning bureaucrazy, politics or reform issues...

Back to 3/4 on -topic:
I do not think that the US is a binary society, thanks for your impressions about the state of your nation, subjective, but interesting. The description of a collective feeling or spirit can sometimes express more than cold statistics can.
I do think however that people underestimate the spread of the wealth distribution. I will elaborate this tomorrow though, it's early here.

On-topic question:
I could not find any convincing arguments why the US still sticks to the system that people have to be registered to vote. Can you give me any?

[Sailor Steve]

I could not find any convincing arguments why the US still sticks to the system that people have to be registered to vote. Can you give me any?
I believe it's as simple as trying to keep track of who has voted and who hasn't.

[August]

I believe it's as simple as trying to keep track of who has voted and who hasn't.

And supposedly their eligibility to vote too.