Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Nowhere Man]

To be as diplomatic as possible, I'd just simply like to ask...wtf is up with swing voters?

My answer: It's our horrible system of the electoral college not allowing states to split their vote coupled with a house of representatives meant to grow with our population but not with a dash of patriotism telling us that it's a moral obligation to vote.

Are the two parties too closely aligned?
The answer at this point is, obviously, yes. I have to agree with opponents at this point that what's happening now is fairly similar to a toned-down Bush doctrine. A massive failure of our system is the marginalization of third parties. The end result of not allowing votes to be split is that one of two strikingly similar entities is ensured of controlling the White House. To borrow a bit of poetic license, it's like either the Dallas Cowboys or the New England Patriots will win the Super Bowl simply because, well, you have to vote for one or the other.

The obvious solution is to ditch the electoral college.

Should the membership of the House of Representatives be static?
The obvious answer at this point is no. The house was specifically designed to grow with population. Not allowing it to do so turns it into a de facto Senate AND it means your representation dwindles with every newborn baby. This was a fundamental element of design in the late 1700s that was flippantly ditched in 1911 but is easy to correct (it wasn't an amendment).

It's hard to reconcile any argument for maintaining the electoral college AND the house freeze. In the best of worlds, both would be ditched.

Are you morally obligated as a citizen to vote? Does the simple act of voting help?
No. It might be construed as lazy, but a vote for "none of the above" is as much of a statement as a vote for anything else.

The Problem
The confusing bit is when people are happy to hop between the two parties. Perhaps it's just me, but this seems far more prevalent in the US than other countries. IOW, stateside, we just flip and flop happily between being liberal and conservative.

This is at the very crux of what I hate. Deciding if you're liberal or conservative every election smacks of there not really being a difference. The funny way the media dwells on undecided voters for dramatic effect adds more drama than it does substance.

The 2004 election is a particularly good example of what I'm talking about. Your approval of Bush, either way, shouldn't be wavering during a media blitz. The "undecided" were, quite simply, a bunch of retards.

Fast-forward to 2012: You might vote for Obama OR one of the Republicans?
NOTE: No insinuation either way. Your vote is yours.

BUT, WTF?

You might be a liberal or a conservative?

I can understand disliking Obama, but I can't understand flipping any more than I can understand, say, a Huckabee supporter voting Obama because Romney was chosen.

Speaking contemporarily, this problem seems to be more of a progressive issue than an conservative one.

[Fox]

http://dir.salon.com/story/comics/tomo/2004/08/23/tomo/

[Ya-ta Boy]

Are the two parties too closely aligned?

In some respects, yes. They both accept capitalism as the economic model of choice. They both have a penchant for foreign military adventures. They both want to get re-elected.

In other ways they are quite different. The Dems have been committed to a social safety net since the New Deal, and the GOP�after a period of supporting it�has become firmly committed to destroying as much of it as they can. The Dems are more social libertarians than the GOP, though they could go even further.

Would you be happier if we had an actual live fascist party?


The end result of not allowing votes to be split is that one of two strikingly similar entities is ensured of controlling the White House.

The part about not allowing electoral votes to be split is not true. Nebraska does it. Other states could do it if they wanted to. Electors themselves can vote for whomever they choose. It doesn't happen often, but it can and has.

Our system as it has evolved does not allow third parties to prosper; that is true--in part. When one has a good idea it is co-opted by a major party and brought into the mainstream. The bad part of a successful multiparty system is that our Constitution does not have a good system of handling it. If the Electoral College cannot elect a president, then the House of Representatives does. Look at the Election of 1876 to see what havoc that plays. I agree that the Electoral College needs to be abolished, but I just don't see it happening.


Should the membership of the House of Representatives be static?
I see you are still on your old hobby horse. You have zeroed in on the wrong house. The real problem is the Senate. Look at the populations of Wyoming and California. This is where the real mis-representation happens. The preservation of the Senate as it is is a huge part of what is wrong (including the filibuster). It also lends to the idea that we are a collection of states, rather than one people. It needs to be dynamited and re-structured.

The "undecided" were, quite simply, a bunch of retards
I may not have chosen exactly that word to describe them, but your main point is true. The media has to count up the likely votes from each of the parties and then guess how many of the undecideds will break left or right. That is our electoral system. Most of them are not particularly political. They seem to vote on minimal knowledge, often affected by nonsense. The vast majority of the public does not pay all that much attention to politics. I'll bet fewer than 1/3 of the entire public does any more than watch the evening news, which is what causes both parties to exaggerate and try to grab headlines. Have you looked at Real Clear Politics? It is just one opinion piece after another from an inflamatory position. The articles have nothing to do with explaining the issues of the day to an honestly interested reader. They are for delivering talking points to those who already have their minds made up. They are a disservice to public discourse.

There is no known solution to this problem.

[geldedgoat]

The only major change I would champion is the division of the executive branch into its constituent departments and have each one voted in separately.

[Nowhere Man]

[Nowhere Man]