|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 3:29 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Yeah, on the one hand, I see Leon's point too, and I don't think it's a bad one. On the other hand, I think, "Be the change you want to see in the world," is a correct idea, and that in this case requires a willingness to vote third party in hopes of doing your part to work towards long-term change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Yeah, on the one hand, I see Leon's point too, and I don't think it's a bad one. On the other hand, I think, "Be the change you want to see in the world," is a correct idea, and that in this case requires a willingness to vote third party in hopes of doing your part to work towards long-term change. |
The American system is set up for only two parties. This is something that I learned about in Poli Sci 101 I think. Single Member district winner take all systems always have two party systems due to the large threshold needed to win elections. This is why countries with parliamentary systems have more parties because the threshold needed for representation is so much lower. I might be missing something in my explanation because it has been a long time since I took that class, but that is the basics of it. Unless another party takes the place of one of the two major ones than we are stuck with what we have.
According to Machiavelli a policy is not defined by its excellence but by its outcome. If its not effective its not virtuous. Voting and supporting third parties isn't virtuous, at least in this line of thinking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Yeah, on the one hand, I see Leon's point too, and I don't think it's a bad one. On the other hand, I think, "Be the change you want to see in the world," is a correct idea, and that in this case requires a willingness to vote third party in hopes of doing your part to work towards long-term change. |
The American system is set up for only two parties. This is something that I learned about in Poli Sci 101 I think. Single Member district winner take all systems always have two party systems due to the large threshold needed to win elections. This is why countries with parliamentary systems have more parties because the threshold needed for representation is so much lower. I might be missing something in my explanation because it has been a long time since I took that class, but that is the basics of it. Unless another party takes the place of one of the two major ones than we are stuck with what we have. |
Even a new party usurping one (or two new parties usurping both, probably not simultaneously) of the current ones would be a potentially positive outcome. If the Republican Party were to genuinely fall apart and end up replaced by a more Libertarian platform, for example, I'd consider that a genuinely good thing for our society. That can't happen unless conservatives abandon the Republicans, though, which in turn means either not voting, or voting third party.
Even if you feel a two party system is the necessary end result of our political system, voting third party has value as a means of working towards change, as does encouraging others to vote third party. The less support the mainstream parties get, the more possible it becomes that a "run" on those parties will occur, with people abandoning them at an ever greater rate. For someone who feelsboth of the current major political parties are simply irredeemably corrupted, this is the only real option.
| Leon wrote: |
| According to Machiavelli a policy is not defined by its excellence but by its outcome. If its not effective its not virtuous. Voting and supporting third parties isn't virtuous, at least in this line of thinking. |
In the long term, it may end up being effective at replacing a dysfunctional party with a functional one, which is why I'm not willing to condemn such behavior in the manner you are. This does require thinking beyond a single election cycle, and allowing for the idea of third-party voters as a sort of political incubator that allows smaller parties to maintain some measure of presence and history which they could build on in the event of a shift towards major-party status.
Bacasper has political views which he evidently feels simply can't be acted upon by voting for either major party. As such, voting for a major party candidate (with rare exceptions) ensures failure to meet his objectives. Voting third party at least gives him the potential to, over time, very possibly achieve his objectives. It's a rational choice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Yeah, on the one hand, I see Leon's point too, and I don't think it's a bad one. On the other hand, I think, "Be the change you want to see in the world," is a correct idea, and that in this case requires a willingness to vote third party in hopes of doing your part to work towards long-term change. |
The American system is set up for only two parties. This is something that I learned about in Poli Sci 101 I think. Single Member district winner take all systems always have two party systems due to the large threshold needed to win elections. This is why countries with parliamentary systems have more parties because the threshold needed for representation is so much lower. I might be missing something in my explanation because it has been a long time since I took that class, but that is the basics of it. Unless another party takes the place of one of the two major ones than we are stuck with what we have. |
Even a new party usurping one (or two new parties usurping both, probably not simultaneously) of the current ones would be a potentially positive outcome. If the Republican Party were to genuinely fall apart and end up replaced by a more Libertarian platform, for example, I'd consider that a genuinely good thing for our society. That can't happen unless conservatives abandon the Republicans, though, which in turn means either not voting, or voting third party.
Even if you feel a two party system is the necessary end result of our political system, voting third party has value as a means of working towards change, as does encouraging others to vote third party. The less support the mainstream parties get, the more possible it becomes that a "run" on those parties will occur, with people abandoning them at an ever greater rate. For someone who feelsboth of the current major political parties are simply irredeemably corrupted, this is the only real option.
| Leon wrote: |
| According to Machiavelli a policy is not defined by its excellence but by its outcome. If its not effective its not virtuous. Voting and supporting third parties isn't virtuous, at least in this line of thinking. |
In the long term, it may end up being effective at replacing a dysfunctional party with a functional one, which is why I'm not willing to condemn such behavior in the manner you are. This does require thinking beyond a single election cycle, and allowing for the idea of third-party voters as a sort of political incubator that allows smaller parties to maintain some measure of presence and history which they could build on in the event of a shift towards major-party status.
Bacasper has political views which he evidently feels simply can't be acted upon by voting for either major party. As such, voting for a major party candidate (with rare exceptions) ensures failure to meet his objectives. Voting third party at least gives him the potential to, over time, very possibly achieve his objectives. It's a rational choice. |
I agree with you in that what you say is theoretically true. In reality I feel the two parties are two entrenched in terms of money, fundraising, connections, etc. The parties are ideologically wide with many members in each party with disparate views and positions, unless they are forced to follow strict party lines which has been happening more and more lately. There is lots of room to reform the parties, which is what the tea party, as much as I disagree with them, is doing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Sympathy for Mr Vengeance wrote: |
| Yeah I fully understand the "lesser of two evils" argument. It's still evil! However imagine Republicans trying to handle the economic crisis. Imagine a widened war into Iran. Imagine Palin as VP. Imagine a war for "maybe 1,000" years in Iraq in the words of McCain, whereas Obama will be bringing some troops back. Imagine INCREASED deregulation and even laxer standards whereas now the Senate may well pass the most comprehensive economic regulatory bill since the Great Depression. |
I will imagine no such things. I'd never vote for a Republican. (Remember, Ron Paul is not really one.) The only hope is outside the mainstream.
How could you betray us? |
Then there is no hope because your views will never be electable on a wide scale. |
A self-fulfilling prophecy - as long as people have your attitude, no one else will ever be electable.
To show you are wrong, we need only to look at the example of Ross Perot. At the height of his presidential campaign, there was essentially a three-way tie, each candidate having a percentage of support in the 30's. For reasons I never fully understood, that is when he withdrew from the race, lost credibility, and was only ended up with 19% in the general election. Had he won or caused neither major party to win the required electoral votes, THAT might have been what was necessary to shake up the system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Sympathy for Mr Vengeance wrote: |
| Yeah I fully understand the "lesser of two evils" argument. It's still evil! However imagine Republicans trying to handle the economic crisis. Imagine a widened war into Iran. Imagine Palin as VP. Imagine a war for "maybe 1,000" years in Iraq in the words of McCain, whereas Obama will be bringing some troops back. Imagine INCREASED deregulation and even laxer standards whereas now the Senate may well pass the most comprehensive economic regulatory bill since the Great Depression. |
I will imagine no such things. I'd never vote for a Republican. (Remember, Ron Paul is not really one.) The only hope is outside the mainstream.
How could you betray us? |
Then there is no hope because your views will never be electable on a wide scale. |
A self-fulfilling prophecy - as long as people have your attitude, no one else will ever be electable.
To show you are wrong, we need only to look at the example of Ross Perot. At the height of his presidential campaign, there was essentially a three-way tie, each candidate having a percentage of support in the 30's. For reasons I never fully understood, that is when he withdrew from the race, lost credibility, and was only ended up with 19% in the general election. Had he won or caused neither major party to win the required electoral votes, THAT might have been what was necessary to shake up the system. |
There are Outliers, he didn't come close to winning, and if he had won he would have had to work with one or both parties extensively or got nothing done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Sympathy for Mr Vengeance wrote: |
| Yeah I fully understand the "lesser of two evils" argument. It's still evil! However imagine Republicans trying to handle the economic crisis. Imagine a widened war into Iran. Imagine Palin as VP. Imagine a war for "maybe 1,000" years in Iraq in the words of McCain, whereas Obama will be bringing some troops back. Imagine INCREASED deregulation and even laxer standards whereas now the Senate may well pass the most comprehensive economic regulatory bill since the Great Depression. |
I will imagine no such things. I'd never vote for a Republican. (Remember, Ron Paul is not really one.) The only hope is outside the mainstream.
How could you betray us? |
Then there is no hope because your views will never be electable on a wide scale. |
A self-fulfilling prophecy - as long as people have your attitude, no one else will ever be electable.
To show you are wrong, we need only to look at the example of Ross Perot. At the height of his presidential campaign, there was essentially a three-way tie, each candidate having a percentage of support in the 30's. For reasons I never fully understood, that is when he withdrew from the race, lost credibility, and was only ended up with 19% in the general election. Had he won or caused neither major party to win the required electoral votes, THAT might have been what was necessary to shake up the system. |
There are Outliers, he didn't come close to winning, and if he had won he would have had to work with one or both parties extensively or got nothing done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sympathy for Mr Vengeance wrote: |
| Yeah I fully understand the "lesser of two evils" argument. It's still evil! However imagine Republicans trying to handle the economic crisis. Imagine a widened war into Iran. Imagine Palin as VP. Imagine a war for "maybe 1,000" years in Iraq in the words of McCain, whereas Obama will be bringing some troops back. |
I just caught this.
You're right. We dodged a bullet by avoiding McCain.
Thanks for this, SMV.
| Quote: |
| Imagine INCREASED deregulation and even laxer standards whereas now the Senate may well pass the most comprehensive economic regulatory bill since the Great Depression. |
Depends on the regulations the administration finally settles on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Sympathy for Mr Vengeance wrote: |
| Yeah I fully understand the "lesser of two evils" argument. It's still evil! However imagine Republicans trying to handle the economic crisis. Imagine a widened war into Iran. Imagine Palin as VP. Imagine a war for "maybe 1,000" years in Iraq in the words of McCain, whereas Obama will be bringing some troops back. |
You're right. We dodged a bullet by avoiding McCain.
|
Something I think virtually the whole world will agree with. No matter how bad Obama is, and he is a really bad leader, Mac/Palin would have been much worse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Krugman on the GOP
| Quote: |
| The next day, Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, confirmed that Mr. Kyl was giving the official party line: �There�s no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject.� |
Yes, let's continue the Bush tax cuts but let unemployment benefits lapse. That's wise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| To show you are wrong, we need only to look at the example of Ross Perot. At the height of his presidential campaign, there was essentially a three-way tie, each candidate having a percentage of support in the 30's. For reasons I never fully understood, that is when he withdrew from the race, lost credibility, and was only ended up with 19% in the general election. Had he won or caused neither major party to win the required electoral votes, THAT might have been what was necessary to shake up the system. |
There are Outliers, he didn't come close to winning, |
Only because he inexplicably dropped out while in a virtual tie for first. He may well have won had he stayed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| To show you are wrong, we need only to look at the example of Ross Perot. At the height of his presidential campaign, there was essentially a three-way tie, each candidate having a percentage of support in the 30's. For reasons I never fully understood, that is when he withdrew from the race, lost credibility, and was only ended up with 19% in the general election. Had he won or caused neither major party to win the required electoral votes, THAT might have been what was necessary to shake up the system. |
There are Outliers, he didn't come close to winning, |
Only because he inexplicably dropped out while in a virtual tie for first. He may well have won had he stayed. |
Didn't he reenter shortly after he dropped out? I looked a bit online and thats what it looked like happened, but I was just a kid then so I don't really remember. Anyways during the actual election he didn't win a single state. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
