Hard to get a thread title to say what I want it to.
This is an assertion and a survey, sorta.
I got to thinking last night about the people who don’t vote because there’s supposedly “No meaningful difference” between the Dems and the Pubs. And I was thinking about the phrases that get tossed around in these discussions. It suddenly dawned on me that the people who have withdrawn into apathy and disgust are not equally spread all over the map. They are, I believe, overwhelmingly people who are more liberal than conservative in their hearts. And when they are thinking that there is no difference, they mean that the left has gotten just as skanky as the right, not the reverse.
If you do not vote because you think there is no point…what is the difference you look for that would get your ass to the polls? What would it look like, and who would your vote go to then? (And I’m not talking about things like campaign tactics and money, that’s a given distasteful truth of getting elected. I’m talking policy.)
Sorry, but I have to disagree. On what do you base your assertion that most of the people who think the parties are not very different are liberals? I’m a liberal. I think the parties are different. I think the problem may be that the candidates don’t always seem so different. Big difference. If you know what I mean.
Perhaps you should ask why the Democrats do not press issues where there are obvious weaknesses in the Republican program. So, for instance, why do the Democrats not call Bush on the numerous lies he has told regarding Iraq? Or, why do the Democrats not press for universal health care when more than 60% of the population favors it? Etc.
On issue after issue, the Democrats do not offer any real alternative to the Republicans, but instead adopt the Republican assumptions and argue over minute subtleties. In the end, the public policies that get adopted will change very little depending on whether there is a Democratic or Republican control, due to the simple fact that both parties are beholden to the same powerful special interests, and not the people. Given this situation, it is completely natural that the population would be apathetic, since the system does not respond to their desires.
I’m a Canadian, an outside observer with no axe to grind, and if anything I’m moderate by American standards, conservative in matters of economics. I can assure you that to me, it’s pathetically obvious the Democrat and Republican parties are very, very similar. They’re not the same, but by the standards of most Western democracies, they’re far closer than opposing parties should be.
Canada has five major federal parties. All are much, MUCH further apart than the Democrats and Republicans, except for two - the PC and Alliance parties, and they’ve been talking about merging for years because nobody here understands why they bother to be different.
IMHO, anyone who really, honestly believe the Democrats and Republicans are extremely different is blinded by partisanship; it is quite obvious to a neutral observer that they are very similar, and many of the claimed differences are cosmetic. There are a few critical differences, but those constitute less than one percent of the whole of governance, and would be naturally moderated by the demands of governance anyway. There is probably more real difference between the extreme ends of the Republican Party than there is between the platforms of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.
The United States is not going to be run differently between one party or the other. Whether the GOP or the Democrats run the country, the Constitution is not going to be amended in any radical form. The U.S. will continue to conduct foreign policy more or less the same way. It will continue to be a free market economy with wasteful government programs burning up tax dollars, in substantially the same amounts no matter who’s in charge. The U.S. will continue to spend an enormous amount on defense, more than any other 10 countries combined, and much of that spending will be porkbarrelry. The single largest budget item will continue to be Social Security. The basics of criminal and civil law are not going to change. Neither party is going to radically alter labor law, make pot legal, or parcel out land to poor people. The U.S. will not become a socialist or a fascist dictatorship. No states will be given special powers not given to other states. The three branches of government will continue to work more or less the way they do now. The budget and tax revenues will not be altered by a large percentage. All the basic things will stay the same.
By comparison, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Communist Party, THOSE are different. If you look at their platforms, they propose change.
No cite for it, sorry, but I do believe that most people tend to vote “against” something, rather than “for” something. What motivates a lot of people to get their asses down to the polls is disgust with the current leadership, or even just a grim “no more tax hikes” determination.
But a lack of disgust with the current leadership doesn’t make them all Closet Liberals. If anything, I would think that it’s the Conservatives who tend to think that everything’s okay, business will carry on as usual, no need for me to vote, and the Liberals who tend to be more of the hand-wringing “We have to DO something, this situation cannot be allowed to continue” type.
In Illinois, voters got their asses down to the polls mainly to dump the GOP, who, thanks to George Ryan, didn’t have a whole lot of credibility left.
No they are partially right. The parties are sort of the same in that they do not have any very strong principles guiding what they do. The Republicans did for a while, during the Reagan and shortly during the Gingrich years. But since then and before there is only a sort of “Fuzziness” about where they stand. You can’t really count on or plan on the Republicans or Democrats stand on anything. They both seem to sell out theyre core beliefs (whatever the hell they are) at a moments motice.
This is why you see so many otherwise apathetic youth joining the Greens and Libertarians. They actually have principles and deffinit beliefs that they stand for. I may find Ralph Naders politics abhorent, but by God, at least I can respect him more then most Republican and Democrat politicians.
I absolutely vote. I voted generally Democratic, but not exclusively.
I concede that at times it does seem like all the candidates are the same, so what’s the point? I just remind myself that if I don’t vote, while I still have a right to complain, I don’t have the right to expect my complaints to be taken seriously.
Stoid is correct about the left being more apathetic and less likely to vote. Every election that I’ve seen that has a low voter turnout skews conservative. After a cursory Google search I found this from the obviously conservative goptoday.com (note that it’s from two years ago)
We had a very low voter turnout yesterday. We all know what happened.
However, I think the reason for this trend is not Stoid’s theory of liberals thinking there is little difference between the two parties, but the differing world views of the right and the left.
Conservatives tend to have a law-and-order, “ask not what you country can do for you-” mentality. They are more likely to volunteer for the military, and are less likely to engage in Civil Disobedience. (When was the last time you saw a sit-in protesting capital gains taxes?). They believe that you have a duty to vote.
The liberal outlook plays down this type of civic duty. They believe that the government should work for the people (literally) and thus the responsibilities of the people do not extend much further than the wages paid to this “employee” (taxes). It is only when the Big Cause comes along that they really get galvanized and go to the polls in numbers. In times like this, when the liberal issue getting the most attention is extending Medicare to prescription drugs, they may prefer to let their employees take care of it. The voter turnout shows this.
I will admit to not seeing much difference within the ‘all-wise-and unquestionable bicameral system’ here in America.
That has nothing to do with the fact that I refuse to vote.
I have no compelling evidence that my vote is counted in America; or that such a count (if it does occur) is even used explicitly to effect the ‘election’ itself. The system is so absurdly non-transparent as to render any ideation of a republic as wishful thinking. I will not participate and or condone that absurdity or ideation, out of respect for the process, myself and the voters.
First, I disagree that campaign tactics and money are ‘given distasteful truths’; that is another debate though. You’re asserting some sort of natural law here, that deception is always required for consent.
What would I like to see occur that would actually bring me to the polls? This prescription issued as mandatory for each local, state and federal election::::
A paper ballot with choices marked in indelible ink that has two reciepts attached to it with perferation.
These reciepts will be different sizes and shapes respectively so as to not be double-cast. Each reciept and the ballot will have a ten-digit identification code on it.
The registration process itself allows one to recieve a ballot, when your name is checked off of your precinct list. Each name will only appear on one precinct list for the county which you live; and there will only be one precinct drop off point per county.
The effect of recieving a ballot based on registration alone assures that your name will not be attached to the ballot itself.
You’re relationship with the election process from this point forward, to assure privacy, is with the 10-digit identification number. Your name effectively becomes the 10 digit ID number from the random ballot you choose from anywhere in the pile of ballots. Extra ballots will be stored away from other ballots and will have a special designation; which appears on the returns list to make it clear which 10 digit ID was cancelled out and that a ‘special’ ballot is used in place of it; which uses a different symbol catagory for the ID numbers than standard ballots.
Standard ballots will only be in the precise number as the number of voters on the checklist in the precinct.
Ballot format will be posted one month before election, including candidates and exact wording, so that a cheat sheet may be prepared to make the process quicker at the voting booth. One should make a cursury check to assure themselves that a switch has not been performed from the posted format; or that they weren’t confused when compiling the cheat-sheet itself from the provisional dummy ballot distributed before the election. It would be wise to bring a copy of this ballot to the polls. The polling station should be required equally to have this ballot in plain veiw, so that voters can take notice whether or not it coincides with the ‘dummy’ ballot exactly before voting on the real one. If the real ballot is different than both the copy of the dummy ballot you brought and the huge poster of the dummy ballot at the voting site; then you have a valid argument for deception and a slowdown pending criminal prosocution against the perpetrators.
The items for voting consist of a voter book, ballot, indelible marker and possibly (hopefully) your prepared cheat-sheet.
The ballot itself will have well defined and reasonably large areas for marking a vote (about the size of a dime) next to the topic being addressed. Filling it in is a “yes”, skipping it is a “no”.
The first part of the ballot will have dividing lines which signify that only one of the bubbles may be selected without negating your ballot. This articulates that you cannot select more than one candidate for the same position. The first part of the ballot is concerned only with candidates, and will be noted by only having one bubble next to the choice. It is critically important to note where the dividing line is for each section; as two votes within the same enclosure will negate the ballot. Print under each line will specify the number of candidates for that specific position, to aid this process. (i.e. “5 candidates for governer”; at which point you should notice a line under the 5th candidate designating the divide between two different administrative positions being voted upon). After the one circle has been selected; the names of the other choices will be crossed off by you with that same pen. A name cannot be both crossed off and have a filled in circle next to it.
The next ‘part’ of the ballot will have two bubbles next to the topic. These are bills being voted upon. A person may not select both “yes” and “no” for the same bill - “yes” will always be designated the leftmost circle of the two; as the topic is always designated to the left of both circles (the bill in question).
If you have no opinion on whether a law should be passed or not; vote “no”. By the end of the ballot, no option should remain unmarked; and no double marking shall not have occurred.
A magnifying glass is made available in each voting booth to enlarge the print of both the ballots and reciepts. The reciepts will have smaller bubbles then the ballots themselves; and may require magnification for some individuals. Special ballot, designation “B” will be used for the blind and are written in brail.
Deaf, blind, mute and quadrapalegic voters may require the assistence of a trusted translator; and delves into detail which many would consider burdomsone to this already long post. This detail requires many layers of exceptional evidence of voter consent being uncoerced.
The reciepts will be marked correspondingly to the original ballot itself. This transcription process must be flawless in order for the ballot to be valid.
Upon exiting the booth, an attendent will check for any invalidations. If the invalidations are in the form of double markings, you will be given the option to vote again; if not, but it is invalid from a lack of markings; you will be asked whether you want to complete your ballot - or forfiet your name from the precinct list. If you choose to forfiet your name; you will be required to show identification again that allowed you to recieve the ballot at step one. A photograph is taken of you and the corresponding ballot ID number in your posession is rendered null. The photograph is used to compare ID theft claims, on the chance that the ‘real’ McCoy shows up. While this may not be resolved so that you can vote for that specific election; it can be noted later that the person in this photograph has committed votefraud, and can/will be placed under warrant for arrest with the corresponding sentence handed down. This security measure (photography) can be applied for all ballots as well; if the incidence of ID theft used for vote fraud becomes a common complaint. This amendment would have a photograph taken before the ballot is selected, before your name is physically crossed off of the list. You’re name would be attributed to the photo, at which point you can select a ballot and observe your name being marked off the ‘precinct’ list. You would still retain the privacy of the 10 digit ballot in regards to voting.
In the instance of double-markings, you will be asked whether you want to recast a new ballot (drawn from the pool of ‘special’ ballots). If the answer is “no”, you will undergo the same procedure of photographing etc… that the person who left it blank went through. If you answer “yes”, you will be issued only one more ballot if you do not ask for assistance. If this ballot is equally double striken in the wrong areas; you will be crossed off the list and both of those 10 digit ID numbers will be crossed off as well. If you ask for assistance; you will be video/audio-taped and unallowed to mark the ballot; but rather dictate your markings to qualified personel. These ballots are pulled from the special ballot reserve which are specified as video-taped both on the returns list and on the reciepts. Both the ballot and the faces of the individuals engaged here must be in full veiw to be evaluated in claims cases against the voting venue.
The attendants who check the ballot for contradictions cannot have indelibile markers on their being; and the ballot must be read from a transparent ‘sheet music stand’ which you and only you placed there. Anyone who attempts to rush your ballot to double-mark it, is arrested on site.
After your ballot has been judged as uncontradictory; You are cleared for the input process and walk over to one of the individuals doing this. Your ID code is entered, alongside your choices - which enter a database that is released to the internet.
At this point your reciepts are seperated from the ballot by a no-brainer paper cutter used only by yourself.
The ballot (not the reciepts) is then dropped into a diagonal shoot that is fully transparent and drops it into a ballot box which is equally transparent. The diagonal shoot is designed such that the ballot edge is not facing observers; but rather the ballot face. You can choose whether you want the markings themselves to face the veiwers or not. The entire process is to ensure that no type of switch has occurred. Before the ballot is dropped, you are required to verify the input from the clerk with your ballot before the ID number gets posted.
This clear box where the ballot ends up is seperated from any monitors which report the ID number postings on the internet.
These ballots are retrieved and counted for precinct results; both by hand and then through machines. These tallies are posted much like the old system.
After dropping your ballot into the box, you are then done for the evening. You can check your reciepts against the internet (ID numbers) with your votes as they are in alpha-numeric order.
The daily paper publishes the results in a special edition as well; to allow a hard-copy for both internet users and non-users alike.
The next day; you are required to reverify your prior ID number entry. ID’s will grant access - registration card, social security card, birth certificates, mail, bank statements, credit cards, passports etc… (this can also pinch potential fraud ‘cases’ pending from the previous day). Once you are verified as being on the county list; you approach the computerized input person again (not necessarily the same one as before) and return one of the reciepts back to them in the process of dounle-checking the ID number against the votes that were marked. This reciept is kept to verify that the voter returned the next day and vouched against any irregularities in regards to their selections from the prior day; and the posted results that will enter the final. Unless this reciept is recieved the next day; the ballot will be considered uncast - and the previous evenings efforts will collapse. (this is more for precinct to precinct redundancy issues where multiple venues exist for one county to cast and deliver ballots) - to check the entire database for double-casts or input errors across the entire web/spectrum within that specific county.
Once this check is marked, the voter has officially voted. They retain the last reciept in the event of some emergency or crisis regarding the election. The ballot is used for machine and hand counts and kept as a reciept to that regard. The one reciept is kept for ID number and keyed input to the internet verification.
Three reciept process; triple redundancy, phenomenal transparency, incites interest and engagement in the political process and the voting process. Two stacks of precinct totals; standard and ID format.
ID format will cover fractons like: 12,980/14,356 registered voters voted this cycle; with columns denoting individual votes for the respective measures labelled in alpha-numeric order of the precincts ID numbers (which should be consecutive excepting cases of special ballots) N/A will charachterize not appearing; EX will chatacterize a null ballot - excluded; in that the person was physically incapable of filling out the ballot twice, unaided. All instances of special-case scenarios are highlighted in a section which labels all the ID numbers that ran through one individual.
The bottom of the column has the totals for each given option on the ballot.
A simple summons of reciepts can resolve any issue which arises in regards to fraud. This system is still very buggy!! There are a few more complxities which weren’t specified here in regards to people who don’t show up, vs. the ability to ‘fill in the blanks’.
Military voting was not addressed; it has to assume that military commanders may place a gun to their soldiers head and force them to vote a certain way – way out in the boonies. I don’t believe a soldier can argue a direct order, as they are considered employed with both their minds and bodies. This requires some acrobatics to address. The other issue revolves around how a person even gets on the precinct list to begin with; and the complexities of noting add-ins as well. I will be more than happy to delve into these as well. All precincts can be lined up with the nationals and all ID numbers will be accounted for.
For what it’s worth, few people in my office voted yesterday, they complain about how all politicians are indiscernable, and they are all skewed left.
In addition, Beeblebrox is correct. It’s pretty well understood that the left tends more towards apathy than the right, which is why low voter turnout = high republican success rate.
And as far as my opinion on the differences between the parties, I think the parties themselves are hugely different in philosophy. I agree, though, that the candidates themselves frequently blur together, resulting in a large number of RINOs and DINOs. I think that frequently this is more a matter of pragmatism, though, rather than ideological homgeneity.
First of all, look at congress - the congressmen run clear across the ideological spectrum, from the Ted Kennedys to the Orrin Hatches, the Cynthia McKinneys to the Pat Robertsons. There’s something there for everyone. However, the laws that come out of congress are always pretty mushy. Why? Well, get a bunch of people with wildly different ideas and force them to come to a single conclusion, and you’re going to invariably wind up with something in the middle, that doesn’t make anybody ecstatic, but doesn’t really piss anyone off, either. You take radical ideas and filter them through a beaurocracy, you get mush.
This mushification extends to the candidates themselves, as well. Everyone knows that most election races come down to swing votes. Swing voters are, practically by definition, moderates. Therefore, the more extreme a politician is in his views, the less likely he is to capture the hearts of the precious swingers. The people chanting “Abortion is always murder! Burn the forests! Tax the poor!” and “Screw the rich! Let’s socialize everything! Heil Marx!” are not going to be getting a lot of cross-party support.
Generally, this muddying of the political waters is a mixed blessing. It’s a big, giant foot on the brake in the Automobile of Progress. The bad ideas will probably die out before they can become seriously determental, but the good ideas can tend to get snuffed out, too. Fortunately, I think the really important ideas can move the inertial behemoth that is our nation into action, given enough time. It just sometimes takes a few decades.
Jeff
My Fellow Americans: Qwitcherbellyachin’ It ain’t democracy if you don’t lose sometimes! Who can forget watching Newt Gangrene rolling around on the floor convulsing in orgasms (or whatever is the reptilian equivalent thereof) Pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and get back to it! Whoever told you this would be easy was lying, whoever told you it would be quick is dreaming. Sudden change may be appealing for its dramatic effect, but it offers far too many opportunities for the unethical, the political entreprenuer, the revolutionary.
The Pubbies have made thier bed, now they get to lie in it. Any of a number of people who can barely make oatmeal without screwing it up could have told them: major tax cuts, a war, and a weak economy is a recipe for Big Trouble. From here on out, they got nobody to blame but themselves. “Well, we would have had a better economy, but the Labor bosses and trial lawyers stopped us.” The bill will come due, and two years is just about right.
It was the leaders who failed this time, a lack of nerve and a lack of committment. The War Scare worked, it was almost bound to. But the Dems cringing appeasement on that issue was nothing but shameful. Sure, they would have lost anyway, but at least it would have been a fight worth having! Win, lose or draw, stand for something!
The alliance of the Money Right and the Jesus Right will weaken. The Reed Machine expects something for its efforts, they are deluded if they think that political power can simply undo social change. They get a sop or two here and there, a big fanfare and hoopla about “partial birth” abortion, but the clock is not going to be turned back, it can’t be done. Photo ops with Congressman reciting the Pledge with special Godliness, but America is a secular, consumerist society and no administration can change that. When they present thier bill and get 10 cents on the dollar, they’re going to be pissed. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch.
Amble on down to the Temp agencies, and look at all the laid off middle management guys trying to sell thier typing skills. The working people always go first, but they’re gone. Now its their turn to realise: they been had. Now it ain’t pretty, and by no means do I suggest gloating at another’s pain. But there is a crude form of justice, and an exquisite and meaningful form of education. The greater the height you fall from, the more safety net is required, its a lesson they won’t soon forget. The plundering of the 401Ks will engender a born-again Populism.
Its gonna be a tough couple of years, especially for the poorer of us, but what’s new in that? Losing is much more painful that not having. All we have to do is endure. Done it before, do it again. Its what we’re good at.
Apos may be close to an answer here. We have all seen the tendency of candidates of both parties to run to the extreme in the primary and then turn around and pander to the center, or at least moderate their tone, for the general election. In the last Presidential election we had things like appearances at Bob Jones University during the primary, which appealed to the true believers who vote in the primary, followed by a scramble to take more centrist positions in the general election to appeal to independents, the unaffiliated and the half-hearted needed to win the general election. Because of the need to get the vote of the unaffiliated and disaffected neither party can really show their core beliefs in the general election. If they did they would cheer up the true believers but drive off the pivotal and decisive voters. Thus the biggest public differences between Bush and Gore involved oil drilling in Alaska and the details of tax policy–not very sexy differences. The uninformed (meaning people informed by Network TV) had every right to think they were dealing with two suits who differed only in that one was promising not to have adulterous affairs on government time and the other was promising to stand up straight and never smile.
Can you imagine what sort of riot would have erupted if one guy was promising to fund social security and Medicare out of general tax revenues and the other was telling us that he wanted to eliminate income taxes entirely, replace them with a national sales tax and launch aggressive war to confiscate Middle Eastern oil fields. If that had happened only the radicals would vote for either of them and the great undecided, somewhat soft thinking mass of voters, who really just want someone to smooth their brow and tell them that every things alright, would rapidly go elect some used up actor as President. Someone on the order of Jack Lemmon, perhaps (yes, I know he’s dead).
Presidential candidates, and other candidates seem un-focused and lacking a real cause because it is political suicide to be focused and to have a cause that the great unwashed have not already bought into. In the end the process of campaigning a candidate is just like selling a car or a vegetable slicer. The public will buy something that doesn’t cost too much and that doesn’t scare them too much. The result is you get mid-size, six cylinder candidates in an unobtrusive color. At heart one candidate may be a Humvee and the other a Porsche, but both of them have to act like Toyotas if they want to be elected.