American Ignorance on Voting

Great Debates
1

It’s Laughable that the majority of Americans will vote for candidates that represent corporate and elite interests.

Is it to be understood that the average American does not understand the inner workings of their political and governmental mechanisms and the interests that fuel them?

Thankfully, many intelligent Americans do post their concerns at this site as can be observed by the support that Ralph Nader has recieved. Nader supporters can be congratulated for their ability independently think beyond what the two major parties spit out in platform rhetoric offered to the unknowing masses.

In a separate thread, Slythe posted that Nader is an unexperienced-(check to see if this is his first election), apolitical-(hey slythe, research what he has dedicated his life work to…) and unproven-(Nader is highly intellectual and a strong leader of poltical organization).

It’s hard to know if Slythe is spitting comments out his/her arse or if he/she is attempting to mislead others as the major party supporters have done for so long.

I beg of those wishing to offer rubuttals of my OP to be well versed in both Naders’ platform/history and to be familiar with Noam Chomsky’s political critiques. Although this may sound very narrow in scope, your comments will be
less balanced within my arguements without this background.

2

Ummm…so what exactly is the debate here? The merits of Nader or the ignorance of American voters, or both? Please clarify.

3

:rolleyes: Yes, anyone who actually believes in the platforms of the two major parties simply must be a mindless sheep enslaved to the media machine driven by evil corporate interests. And all the intelligent people and independant thinkers can be known by their support for Nader.

Before you lambast slythe for spitting out misinformation, would you care to examine your own biases a little bit?

4

Nader’s merits r/t his platform and that a greater number of American voters have not directed their support towards him offer that this is an interrelated issue.

5

Ptahlis-

My statement is not based on biases but instead intelligent conjecture. Most Americans(who brag about their model of democracy) are supporting individuals who don’t hold their concerns at heart either because the popular Candidate is powerless to offer change, ei. governmental change is not a power they hold, or that the candidate works for the corporate elite’s interests.
So where’s my misinformation?

6

And what pray tell, concludes you to believe that Ralph Naders views are supported by the masses. Must be that 4% of the polls.

7

hey stuffinboy,
READ, then reply.
Thanks.

8

Once I learned about the Libertarians, I thought OMG, everyone is a Libertarian! Their views are exactly what everyone believes in!! Ha. Was I fooled.

But I do believe their platform blows away Nader’s, and if more people took a look, perhaps we might get, say… 8% of the vote?

9

Excuse me Mary my assumption is based on my own experience of having looked at his platform, realized great man, a few carefully crafted slogans diguising a socialist agenda, and said NO THANKS!

If you have no intention if supporting you assumptions, why post it here?

And just because I have nothing better to do:

Based on this statement, voting for Nader would be useless anyway. Why?

  1. He has no coalition in congress (remember it’s filled with republicrats) to support his policies

  2. Passing legislation requires compromise (since he claims theirs only one party, he has noone to compromise with)

  3. nader would be an ineffectual president.

10

slight hijack
I was wondering this a.m., just how apathetic and ignorant would you have to be to still be undecided at this late date, and isn’t it something how influential these obermensch will be in deciding the outcome of the election.
end hijack

11

Well, as a person who invests a healthy chunk of his disposable income back into the market, Nader and his oh-not-so-cleverly-concealed socialist agenda is not to my liking.

So I have analyzed the candidates positions, what they represent (both their spoken statements, their past positions and their voting records) and made up my own mind.

That’s what I call the democratic process.

Your conjecture that only right-minded individuals (and they are identified as being right-minded because they think like you) is a circular and self-fulfilling argument.

My advice: stop believing your own press and think for yourself.

ExTank
“Mostly Harmless :p”

12

People Who Vote For Nader:
Intelligent
Independent thinkers

People Who Don’t Vote for Nader:
Laughable
Average Americans who do not understand government’s inner workings
Unknowing masses

Nope, no elitism there. :rolleyes:

13

Firstly, since you haven’t provided any real information, I don’t know where your misinformation is exactly. Your bias is revealed by your choice of words though.

How about defining what you mean by “elite,” making a case that the Dems/Repubs are representing corporate interests to the exclusion of the interests of the average Joe, or that representing corporate interests is in itself a bad thing. Last time I checked, production, wealth, wages, and just about everything else was run by or affected by corporations.

**

Umm… yeah. In other words, supporting Nader is evidence for intelligence. While we all generally like to think our beliefs/philosophies are the correct ones, and that those who agree with us are likely to be smarter than the rest, many of us are aware that reasonable, intelligent people can disagree, and may even be right.

**

“Heaven’s Gate followers can be congratulated for their ability (to) independently think beyond what the major religions spit out in dogmatic rhetoric offered to the unknowing masses.” To hold an unpopular position is no guarantee of its correctness. Witness the KKK for example.

**

While I wouldn’t call Nader apolitical, he is both inexperienced and unproven at actually performing public duty. He may have experience in a campaign, and he may be a proven leader amongst a group of people with a generally similar philosophy, but I believe slythe is talking about other things.

**

This bit is the worst of all. You basically accuse slythe of being a) an idiot who makes things up or b) an evil party shill attempting to mislead people. In retrospect, concerning what you said above, there would also be c) one of the “unknowing masses” brainwashed by “platform rhetoric.”

Given the tenor of the OP, all I can conclude is that you are so partisan that you are not particularly interested in any point of view other than your own, and question the veracity, intelligence, or motives of those who disagree. As far as I am concerned, that sounds like it qualifies as extremely biased, and why should I, or anyone else for that matter, attempt to argue the issues in light of that attitude?

14

Stuffinb-

Your first post didn’t make any sense(unless it’s nonsensically sarcastic) because I never said the masses supported Nader’s policy!! Where the hell did you glean that from?

Your second post has substance for debate, but you had to offer a statement of substance for my ability to back my assertions. Are you always this backwards in discussion?

Now to your points:

  1. Nader doesn’t have, nor would have a coalition in government. Astute logic Stuff! The unknowing masses would seem not willing to vote for a man willing to make government work for the common person instead of lobby groups and vested corporate interests as the major parties will and have done.
    The fact that even if Nader was voted in without congress support does show some degree of fault with the democratic process in the US.
    It could also be argued that voters could elect congress members under the party that Nader represents, once again though, only if the American public were not a group of unknowing folks.

  2. There is no comprimise now except on small/mute points. The present mechanisms for the passing of legislative works are fueled and forced by the interests placed within the governmental agencies and bodies outside of the electoral process.
    I don’t understand your point anyways, in that Nader would be the entity that the other representatives would have to learn to comprimise with, or am I missing something?

  3. Speaking about not backing one’s assertions!!! What is your arguement that supports Nader being an ineffective pres.? I’ve already partially suppported my reasons.

Put effort into future posts Stuffy or I won’t even bother replying.

15

Extank/palandine/Ptahlis

Not to lump you together as to form associations but to save posts…

I dont care if you vote for Nader or anybody else but, the average American is entirely blind to what the electoral process in the US really gives them. Alone on the issue of voter apathy, American don’t think the system works for them but then they are suffocated in rhetoric by major political parties that don’t represent their concerns or what they believed the party promised them.

Are Americans unintelligent about their political system? Well if “intelligence” translates onto their abilty to truely rationalize what their political affiliations they choose will gives them in actual social outcome then, yes, they are unintelligent.

Is Nader socialist in view? It’s all so relative but if socialist means creating a governmental body that is not forced into actions by monied interests and corporate lobbyists then, yes. But, Socialist=Communist to the generally misguided population of the US and remember what the democratically chosen McCarthy did with those well meaning folks?

Yes the corporate interest have a controlling hand in all aspects of our economic,enviromental,social and ethical lives…and without being a pessimist, one can say that has had some devastating effects for all of us. Especially devastating when North Americans have had little ability to change the course of these huge decisions with their limited democratic choices.

And, no Slythe probably did mean what he was saying of he/she has a hard time appropriately expressing himself ie. there wasn’t room for alternative impression in what he said.

There are good choices in many idealogical forms but, the majority if Americans believe there are only two forms of very different ideals that are the repubs/democrats…and what a sad reality that is.

16

Methinks this would be better in the Pit.

My main beef with Nader: his assertation that Bush and Gore are the same. Not exactly true. Not even close.

17

'Nuff said.

But this is the way a lot of Nader supporters must think: Lewis Lapham, editor of Harper’s and an elitist blowhard if ever there was one, is supporting him.
Nader fills a much-needed gap.

18

For the record, the original poster has gone to great lengths in the past to diss America, americans, baseball and apple pie. This is, yet, another thinly veiled attempt at this. She was already told where she could go…

Yer pal (unless you’re an anti-American twit like MHL),
Satan

*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Six months, three weeks, five days, 3 hours, 11 minutes and 57 seconds.
8365 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,045.66.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 1 day, 1 hour, 5 minutes.

David B used me as a cite!*

19

I just did a search on the OPer, and it appears that this Mary Hart person is a Canadian, and she (he) is saying these awful things about American voters.

I am officially eating my words.
I still think Lewis Lapham’s an elitist blowhard, and I still think Nader fills a much-needed gap.
But my sincere apologies to all you Nader supporters for even implying anything bad about your collective character on the basis of this one person.

(I should know better than to post when I’m drunk & tired.)

20

Pantom:

Well, you certainly aren’t the first person to have done so.

I know that Socialism/Communism aren’t the same thing; I believe that most of the SD’rs do as well. Doesn’t change the fact that I’m opposed to expanding the powers of the Federal Gov’t, or limiting civil liberty in the name of the “Collective Good”.

I’m not comfortable with Bush’s proximity to the Christian Right, and my Congressional reps. know that (I e-mail them and let them know; I encourage all Americans to do so by getting onto Project Vote Smart).

But I recognize realpolitik when I see it and voted for who I though best represented my interests and has a snow-balls chance in hell of actually getting elected.

If alternate candidates begin taking larger chunks of the electorate, and I feel that they better represent my interests than the two major parties, then, at such time, they will get my vote.

Does my one vote make a difference? In the big picture: of course not. But it’s not about all that.

It’s electing to be a part of the process, not apart from the process.

Only when we Americans give up our fixation for Must-See-TV and Monday Night Football, and become informed and active in our civil affairs, can the special interests and the fringe elements be mitigated.

So, whatever you do, whatever you believe, GET OUT AND VOTE!

ExTank
“Mostly Harmless :p”