Hilarious how the GOP spends half its time screaming wildly about Obama trying to become a dictator and the other half of its time signing over constitutional powers to him. To say nothing of the Democrats who spent eight years under Bush claiming executive authority had run amok and now can't pass the buck fast enough.
This is why I don't vote, it isn't a struggle between Left and Right or Democrat and Republican, it's basically the people with money against everyone else. And my side (the people without money) lose no matter who gets elected in most cases.
Not to be that guy, but there are generally other candidates than just the main two. Most seem to ignore third-party candidates because they'll never win, but that quickly becomes a vicious circle: they probably won't win so people don't vote for them, it looks like they have little support so people won't bother, they continue to earn 1-3% of votes.
That's not to say third party people are the greatest either, personally, a candidate needs to earn my vote, not just be the lesser of evils. What I'm saying is that if a non-main candidate interests you, I think it's worth your time to vote. The same way it's nice to tell someone on the Internet that you appreciate them.
There are a lot of hardworking people trying to make the world better, they just don't have the funding, pull, or connections to make it happen. But as we've been seeing with recent protests: if there are enough people fed up with the current system, and people back another option, the (US) government does seem to still listen to its people.
Look up the history of the Greens in Germany they went from insignificant nth contender in the 1980s to ruling party - simply by slowly gathered the votes of discontent from people fed up with the two main parties. Not voting is not a strategy; should be mandatory in my opinion.
I agree that too many in the country don't exercise their right to vote, but I wouldn't take away their right to abstain. But, I mean, that could be solved by having an `abstain` option on the ballot itself.
Here in Australia it's mandatory to "vote" or you get a crappy little fine, few hundred, who cares. But here's the clever bit, voting just consists of showing up and giving your name so they can cross you off the list. You can take the ballot, and just shove it in the box blank. Perfectly legal "abstain" vote in a country where you have to vote.
And even if they don't win, third parties can influence policies of the main two. The main two want to avoid splitting voters across themselves and similar-but-different third parties. Third parties gaining a significant percentage can pull the main parties in their direction to avoid losing those voters again.
We had a case of this in Massachusetts this year in our governor's race. One of the third party candidates did so well during the first debate that all of the third-party candidates were then blocked from future debates. Of course, there's nothing exactly admitting that, but it seems like it could hardly be a coincidence. (In fact, the third-party candidate that did well was _uninvited_ from a future debate that he had already accepted an invitation to.)
Bonus: he ended up earning the minimum 5% vote needed to establish a new political party[0] in the state!
> they probably won't win so people don't vote for them, it looks like they have little support so people won't bother...
This is a symptom of first past the post voting. CGPGrey does a great series of simple videos demonstrating alternative voting methods that I found particularly enjoyable[0].
It's like the term "activist judge." They're just following the Constitution when it's something you like, but they're an "activist" when you don't like it.
Voting for the lesser evil doesn't work. It allows one side to get your vote by being barely better than the other.
But I've been wondering, does voting third party work better than voting for good else greater evil? Voting third party means in most races your desires can be ignored, as you won't be voting for either candidate likely to win and thus will have no impact on the election. But if you vote for good else greater evil, in a system where most are either voting party regardless of actual candidate are voting for the lesser evil, do you have a better chance of getting the lesser evil side to try to change policies enough they register as good?
If you are lucky enough to live somewhere where third party has a chance, that is the best choice. But what is the optimal strategy for those of us who don't?
> Voting third party means in most races your desires can be ignored, as you won't be voting for either candidate likely to win and thus will have no impact on the election.
If you vote for the candidate that lost but still had 40% of the vote (and polls showed that ahead of time), does that mean your vote had no impact? Is your vote only meaningful if you vote for the candidate that won? If not, where is this (subjective?) line?
> If you are lucky enough to live somewhere where third party has a chance, that is the best choice. But what is the optimal strategy for those of us who don't?
The optimal strategy is to be the third option. It's how the system is supposed to work.
The problem is the same as for a business which needs to make a major change that will tick off customers and lose business until a critical point is reached, when things will suddenly get much better. Voting third party leads to the more acceptable major party losing and the more-evil party winning more power until enough finally support the third party enough to win. This process rarely goes well.
I went to some political training once, which taught that the best use of third parties is to punish a major party. They gave an example of a reliably Democrat district, with Republicans getting 45% of the vote each time. Then the Democrats picked someone who was poor on environmental issues. A bunch of people voted Green and the Republican won with the standard 45%. But two years later, the Democrats chose a strong environmentalist and took it back.
Longer-term, we can push for range or approval voting, which don't penalize you for voting your true preference. They're legal under current law and compatible with voting machines. We could start small: third-party primaries, local elections, etc.
Yup, the right-wing base is furious. We didn't push for an overwhelming win for Republicans in Congress just to hand the Obama darned near everything he wants. There's a whole lotta people who vote R only because "lesser of two evils"; they'd jump ship to a third party if only a viable strong leader would appear.
Likewise, the Left had the House, Senate, and President and could have passed anything they wanted for two years. Their opportunity was blown too. (Yes, resistance from the opposition could have been overcome.)
Hence the imperative of individual liberty in the US Constitution: grant the government minimal limited powers, leaving the population free to live as they see fit short of actual harm to others.
> Hence the imperative of individual liberty in the US Constitution: grant the government minimal limited powers, leaving the population free to live as they see fit short of actual harm to others.
There's nobody who actually wants to do that though.
People on the right always make a song and dance about "limited government" but then go on to illegalise abortion, drugs, and pass mountains of pro-corporation (anti-small business) legislation.
I see a lot of "small government" during election but none during terms. Where is this small government candidate? What have they been actually doing to accomplish it? And why is "small government" so often conflated with "small taxes?"
Hence my point about the right-wing base being so mad. Winning candidates spew just enough "small government" rhetoric to get elected, then forget about it when in power.
A major problem is primaries. A slew of would-be candidates vie for the ticket, most of them being actual "small government" types, but the party vote gets split among them ... while a single "centrist"/"large government" candidate appeals to the left/centrist voters of the party, and garners more votes. If 70% of the party really does want "small government", with the 30% remaining wanting a "left/centrist" candidate, and there's 8 primary candidates, and 7 of them split the 70% vote into about 10% each, but the dissenting 30% minority all go for the "should be a Democrat" (aka "Republican In Name Only", aka RINO), then the "large government" candidate wins with 3 times the votes of any competitors. This has happened repeatedly, and is leaving the bulk of the Republican "base" very angry but with no viable alternatives that won't result in the Democrat winning thanks to splitting the vote on the way to replacing the Republican party.
the Left had the House, Senate, and President and
could have passed anything they wanted for two years
You're forgetting about the filibuster. And the Democrats only had a filibuster proof Senate for less than half of only one of those two years. I don't remember the history exactly but I'm guessing that's when they passed Obamacare.
>Likewise, the Left had the House, Senate, and President and could have passed anything they wanted for two years. Their opportunity was blown too. (Yes, resistance from the opposition could have been overcome.)
This is not quite true.
In the 107th Congress, the dems had a tie in the Senate until a Vermont Senator switched from republican to Independent. The republicans controlled both the presidency, Congress, and some would argue also the Supreme Court, during the 108th and 109th Congresses. And in the 110th, the dems held a one seat advantage in the Senate if you count Independent Sen. Bernard Sanders on their side. But the republicans made unprecedented use of the filibuster to obstruct the normal business negating any control.
And until 2008, you also had a large number of Blue Dog democrats in the House who were just as likely to vote with the republicans as they were with the democrats.
Plus you had a "Democrat" like Lieberman who was a keynote speaker at the republican national convention. He was hardly a reliable vote on the democrats' issues.
So no, they may have held a few slim majorities on paper, but they never controlled Congress.
I've never voted in an election where the ONLY thing on the ballot was the president.
If you aren't voting you are missing out on all your local and state level elections which you most certainly can effect change in. I would definitely encourage anyone to at least go to the polls and take a look at the ballot, there are almost always state level amendments and propositions to vote on that can have major effects on your state
That's true, now that I live in Montana I'm much more inclined to vote because we have ballot initiatives and competitive parties. Previously I lived in Illinois where most parts of the state are single-party and there are no ballot initiatives (for the most part).
Fast track is a trade-off. It lets Congress set negotiating objectives, which new trade agreements must meet. If an agreement meets all the objectives, then it goes to a fast vote. If it doesn't, then it won't. It's not a blank check to the president, it's telling him up front "these are the must-haves."
For example, Congress could pass a fast track bill that says that any new trade agreement must not extend copyright any farther. They probably won't, though, which is why EFF is opposing fast track.
Fast track is fine as a governing concept, but if a group's objectives are not included in it, then that group tends to oppose fast track.
The EFF has decided to talk about the process in their campaigns, rather than the substance--a choice I am not fond of, because I think it perpetuates citizen ignorance of how government actually works.
All of the people the EFF says to tweet to are Democrats...in a Republican-controlled house. This seems like an ineffectual strategy.
They should be trying to sway influential Republicans in the House, to make it clear that opposition to the TPP is bi-partisan. I think a number of Republicans would dislike some of the aspects of the TPP that center on issues of national sovereignty, so it's not like this has to be an especially partisan issue.
It's two Senators and one House Representative, but I agree that spreading the word (especially starting with your own representatives in Congress) is a good idea.
likely because they //Democrats// have shown they will support the White House direction regardless of merit or political cost. So the way to sway the White House is convince Congressional Democrats that it is too politically costly. doesn't mean that the Administration won't try an executive order to circumvent if they want
Why would a Republican controlled house vote to hand the President a freebee? Could it be the two parties are much the same when it comes to screwing the American people?
Which is why they've been so proud to share the details with the people of the USA, right? Foreign companies will be able to sue the USA if any of TPP provisions are violated (allegedly... it's a secret agreement), so it would be nice to actually debate it first. Legislators have been excluded from TPP negotiations as well.
Additionally, fast tracking bypasses Constitutional procedures to ratify treaties.
The supporters of TPP are the legislators who serve big business, generally. Those opposed are the populists. If by good for the American people, you mean American corporations and American investors, then you're right that it's good for them.
You're almost right. Just s/people/entrenched companies/. The people don't get a say.
Democrat vs Republican is basically a contest between two business factions, the outcome of which is very important to their respective bottom lines, but ultimately meaningless with regards to individual liberty and sane governing. This issue increases corporate power as well as government power (further cementing the concept of Imaginary Property means there's more to rule), so there's no reason for disagreement.
The secrecy of the TPP in it's initial stages and it's fast-tracking in Congress is most definitely suspicious, but I fail to see anything that looks harmful to the American people. If anything, it at least seems to be addressing abusive labor practices abroad, which in turn could make the U.S. more competitive in the production of goods. Am I missing something?
It would be nice to see this discussed more openly in Congress, but I'm curious if this is due to the pressure of China's rival regional agreement, FTAAP.
> could make the U.S. more competitive in the production of goods
I think the majority of the goods in this context will be digital goods. The tribunal system is a sure way for a multinational company to bend a country over for a good spanking over not enforcing draconian DRM laws.
35 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 86.9 ms ] threadThis is why I don't vote, it isn't a struggle between Left and Right or Democrat and Republican, it's basically the people with money against everyone else. And my side (the people without money) lose no matter who gets elected in most cases.
That's not to say third party people are the greatest either, personally, a candidate needs to earn my vote, not just be the lesser of evils. What I'm saying is that if a non-main candidate interests you, I think it's worth your time to vote. The same way it's nice to tell someone on the Internet that you appreciate them.
There are a lot of hardworking people trying to make the world better, they just don't have the funding, pull, or connections to make it happen. But as we've been seeing with recent protests: if there are enough people fed up with the current system, and people back another option, the (US) government does seem to still listen to its people.
We had a case of this in Massachusetts this year in our governor's race. One of the third party candidates did so well during the first debate that all of the third-party candidates were then blocked from future debates. Of course, there's nothing exactly admitting that, but it seems like it could hardly be a coincidence. (In fact, the third-party candidate that did well was _uninvited_ from a future debate that he had already accepted an invitation to.)
Bonus: he ended up earning the minimum 5% vote needed to establish a new political party[0] in the state!
[0]: http://www.unitedindependent.org/
This is a symptom of first past the post voting. CGPGrey does a great series of simple videos demonstrating alternative voting methods that I found particularly enjoyable[0].
[0]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=PLEcHCTVM79B...
But I've been wondering, does voting third party work better than voting for good else greater evil? Voting third party means in most races your desires can be ignored, as you won't be voting for either candidate likely to win and thus will have no impact on the election. But if you vote for good else greater evil, in a system where most are either voting party regardless of actual candidate are voting for the lesser evil, do you have a better chance of getting the lesser evil side to try to change policies enough they register as good?
If you are lucky enough to live somewhere where third party has a chance, that is the best choice. But what is the optimal strategy for those of us who don't?
If you vote for the candidate that lost but still had 40% of the vote (and polls showed that ahead of time), does that mean your vote had no impact? Is your vote only meaningful if you vote for the candidate that won? If not, where is this (subjective?) line?
> If you are lucky enough to live somewhere where third party has a chance, that is the best choice. But what is the optimal strategy for those of us who don't?
The optimal strategy is to be the third option. It's how the system is supposed to work.
Longer-term, we can push for range or approval voting, which don't penalize you for voting your true preference. They're legal under current law and compatible with voting machines. We could start small: third-party primaries, local elections, etc.
Likewise, the Left had the House, Senate, and President and could have passed anything they wanted for two years. Their opportunity was blown too. (Yes, resistance from the opposition could have been overcome.)
Hence the imperative of individual liberty in the US Constitution: grant the government minimal limited powers, leaving the population free to live as they see fit short of actual harm to others.
There's nobody who actually wants to do that though.
People on the right always make a song and dance about "limited government" but then go on to illegalise abortion, drugs, and pass mountains of pro-corporation (anti-small business) legislation.
I see a lot of "small government" during election but none during terms. Where is this small government candidate? What have they been actually doing to accomplish it? And why is "small government" so often conflated with "small taxes?"
A major problem is primaries. A slew of would-be candidates vie for the ticket, most of them being actual "small government" types, but the party vote gets split among them ... while a single "centrist"/"large government" candidate appeals to the left/centrist voters of the party, and garners more votes. If 70% of the party really does want "small government", with the 30% remaining wanting a "left/centrist" candidate, and there's 8 primary candidates, and 7 of them split the 70% vote into about 10% each, but the dissenting 30% minority all go for the "should be a Democrat" (aka "Republican In Name Only", aka RINO), then the "large government" candidate wins with 3 times the votes of any competitors. This has happened repeatedly, and is leaving the bulk of the Republican "base" very angry but with no viable alternatives that won't result in the Democrat winning thanks to splitting the vote on the way to replacing the Republican party.
This is not quite true.
In the 107th Congress, the dems had a tie in the Senate until a Vermont Senator switched from republican to Independent. The republicans controlled both the presidency, Congress, and some would argue also the Supreme Court, during the 108th and 109th Congresses. And in the 110th, the dems held a one seat advantage in the Senate if you count Independent Sen. Bernard Sanders on their side. But the republicans made unprecedented use of the filibuster to obstruct the normal business negating any control. And until 2008, you also had a large number of Blue Dog democrats in the House who were just as likely to vote with the republicans as they were with the democrats. Plus you had a "Democrat" like Lieberman who was a keynote speaker at the republican national convention. He was hardly a reliable vote on the democrats' issues. So no, they may have held a few slim majorities on paper, but they never controlled Congress.
If you aren't voting you are missing out on all your local and state level elections which you most certainly can effect change in. I would definitely encourage anyone to at least go to the polls and take a look at the ballot, there are almost always state level amendments and propositions to vote on that can have major effects on your state
For example, Congress could pass a fast track bill that says that any new trade agreement must not extend copyright any farther. They probably won't, though, which is why EFF is opposing fast track.
Fast track is fine as a governing concept, but if a group's objectives are not included in it, then that group tends to oppose fast track.
The EFF has decided to talk about the process in their campaigns, rather than the substance--a choice I am not fond of, because I think it perpetuates citizen ignorance of how government actually works.
They should be trying to sway influential Republicans in the House, to make it clear that opposition to the TPP is bi-partisan. I think a number of Republicans would dislike some of the aspects of the TPP that center on issues of national sovereignty, so it's not like this has to be an especially partisan issue.
Perhaps (shock!) the TPP is actually a good idea and will be beneficial to the people of the USA
Additionally, fast tracking bypasses Constitutional procedures to ratify treaties.
The supporters of TPP are the legislators who serve big business, generally. Those opposed are the populists. If by good for the American people, you mean American corporations and American investors, then you're right that it's good for them.
Democrat vs Republican is basically a contest between two business factions, the outcome of which is very important to their respective bottom lines, but ultimately meaningless with regards to individual liberty and sane governing. This issue increases corporate power as well as government power (further cementing the concept of Imaginary Property means there's more to rule), so there's no reason for disagreement.
The secrecy of the TPP in it's initial stages and it's fast-tracking in Congress is most definitely suspicious, but I fail to see anything that looks harmful to the American people. If anything, it at least seems to be addressing abusive labor practices abroad, which in turn could make the U.S. more competitive in the production of goods. Am I missing something?
It would be nice to see this discussed more openly in Congress, but I'm curious if this is due to the pressure of China's rival regional agreement, FTAAP.
I think the majority of the goods in this context will be digital goods. The tribunal system is a sure way for a multinational company to bend a country over for a good spanking over not enforcing draconian DRM laws.