State of the US 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]

Originally Posted by razark

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

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

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by tater

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]

Originally Posted by tater

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]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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]

Originally Posted by August

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?