-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
2012 USA Election Thread: Obama projected winner
- Thread starter THE_IRON_...KENYAN?
- Start date
- Status
except that view is objectively wrong.
the primary contributor to us getting out of the great depression was the mass government spending on World War II. government spending has routinely been the catalyst for economic recovery throughout history. it's obviously a balance, you don't want to do it too much because deficit spending is "bad" and all, but it's been proven effective.
the primary contributor to us getting out of the great depression was the mass government spending on World War II. government spending has routinely been the catalyst for economic recovery throughout history. it's obviously a balance, you don't want to do it too much because deficit spending is "bad" and all, but it's been proven effective.
Uhhhh, because maybe a third party candidate is better? Break out of the two-party system, friend.
But allow me this rephrase: buying into every aspect of and not questioning at all your candidate's platform is stupid and counterproductive.
In a perfect world, there would be more than two candidates who stood a true chance of winning the election, but sadly we live in a country that is pretty much dominated by Democrats and Republicans. Any third party candidate is pretty much guaranteed to lose.
So while I would definitely prefer to see Jill Stein in the White House rather than Barrack Obama, I'm still voting Obama-- doing otherwise would just give Mitt Romney a higher chance of getting elected, which I DEFINITELY don't want. Ultimately, I'd much rather prevent Romney from getting elected than anything else, since the damage he'd probably do to our country outweighs the potential good that another candidate could do.
Then again, I'm from Massachusetts, so it's not like my vote really matters anyway :/
But voting against whichever of the two major parties you agree with more is a stupid decision, unless you absolutely cannot live with either of them. It is unfortunate, but a two-party system is a necessary consequence of a vote determined by plurality.
In a Mexican election in 2012, three parties went into an election and one party won with 39% of the vote. Much of the other 61% actively disliked him. Three parties isn't as good as you think it is, not with this system of voting.
There are other ways for people to count votes in a democracy that treat everyone's vote as equal and avoid this problem. Perhaps we should consider switching to one of them before we start praising third party candidates.
In a Mexican election in 2012, three parties went into an election and one party won with 39% of the vote. Much of the other 61% actively disliked him. Three parties isn't as good as you think it is, not with this system of voting.
There are other ways for people to count votes in a democracy that treat everyone's vote as equal and avoid this problem. Perhaps we should consider switching to one of them before we start praising third party candidates.
Some republicans used to say the exact same thing as you... until Mitt Romney. I actually have a friend who said that to me last night. It's not a question of party politics, it's a question of who you most agree with. Sometimes it can be someone from the opposing party more than from your own.
I don't see a voting system change in the US happening any time soon. The best system for allowing multiple parties would probably be instant runoff voting, but after years and years of just "click to vote" it'd be pretty impossible to get people to get on board with suddenly going IRV. We'd need to push for more of it for elections on the local level to make it not seem so crazy for elections on the federal level.askaninjask said:
Also, I know that a lot of people also cite the US's screwy campaign finance laws as the reason why the choices are so slim. I have to think that money in politics is inevitable regardless of the system in place, so change on that front would likely have little effect as far as the number of viable parties to vote for. I feel the dearth of options definitely has more to do with the US's First-past-the-post system, which promotes tactical voting for a party you oppose because you dislike the other one more (see: avoiding askaninjask's Mexico scenario), ultimately leading to a 2-party equilibrium.
So if you want more options, don't focus so much on campaign finance reform, focus on changing the voting system itself - starting with the local level. Band together with others from your area and harass your municipal and state representatives about this if you want more options! Your votes mean more to them than they would for a federal congressman, so they'll be more likely to consider. (I know this sounds really hokey and "call-to-arms"y, but seriously, if you really care about this issue, don't just complain about it on a Pokemon forum, hassle the people who have the power to change it).
EDIT: Or range-voting system. Or something else that's better. I don't know all the intricacies of all the voting systems, just that FPTP trends toward 2-party equilibrium and is pretty not good because of it.
Nope. IRV has serious problems, range voting is the answer http://rangevoting.org/rangeVirv.html
So, you COULD send a message with your vote, you just choose not to.
So, you have already given up on changing the status quo, so you're just bowing down to it.
Pluralities happen on the Supreme Court in landmark cases, but we live with those. I was going to say IRv because I've been a proponent of it for a while, but lati0s's link is very enlightening. Range voting all the way.
Just about every political study done that is of any repute shows that voters agree far more with third party candidates than they initially think, sometimes even far more than any Dem/Rep candidate they threw all their weight behind.. Why SHOULDN'T we praise these people? They're giving us another option aside from the giant douche/turd sandwich choice we're faced with every election.
It's not that I've given up on the status quo, it's that there is an actual reason why the status quo exists and why rational people will follow it. I'm not saying third parties are bad! I'm just saying that they are currently detrimental to the people who vote for them, through no fault of their own. It's inherent in the system we have now.
What we need is voting reform so that it stops being a bad decision to vote third party. And honestly it doesn't matter too much which voting system we use, so long as the so-called spoiler effect (or as most people know it, the "Ralph Nader" effect) is impossible.
Third party candidates, at least for now, should not garner too much attention to themselves or they risk taking votes away from the party they agree with more.
What we need is voting reform so that it stops being a bad decision to vote third party. And honestly it doesn't matter too much which voting system we use, so long as the so-called spoiler effect (or as most people know it, the "Ralph Nader" effect) is impossible.
Third party candidates, at least for now, should not garner too much attention to themselves or they risk taking votes away from the party they agree with more.
The best way to change the voting system would be to get involved with the nomination process. 95%+ of the time Democrats or Republicans are going to win the election (Presidential, Senate, etc.), so be sure to nominate those who support changing the voting system.
Obama on nuclear subs: "as a wise man once said, 'darlin it's better down where it's wetter, take it from me'."
On third parties, I'd suggest that the presidential race isn't the best place to vote for third party candidates at this stage (especially if you're in a swing state).
Senate is probably the best place to do it because it's very unlikely a third party candidate can make an impact on the presidential stage, however a few third party senators is both a real possibility and capable of having some real impact if elected.
Senate is probably the best place to do it because it's very unlikely a third party candidate can make an impact on the presidential stage, however a few third party senators is both a real possibility and capable of having some real impact if elected.
Yep. Do nothing instead and just let the system fuck you. In the last Canadian election, enough people voted for the party that had the whole "third party" status for the past several cycles and made them the new official opposition. Next election, they might even be our standing government.
You can either start small like Adam suggested, or you could stay at home pretending like you're a bigshot for "fighting the system" or whatever it is non-voters believe they're doing.
I'm not saying it's directly parallel. After all, our campaign laws are pretty different. What you just said is no different than "why bother" and that's the type of shit that'll never fix your country.
the point is that many democrats don't feel it's worth the risk siphoning votes away from their nominee; the risk of romney winning is too high. it's not worth it having all the bad things that we/they feel would happen just so in x number of cycles green parties might stop being such a joke.
don't tell me to eat my vegetables
don't tell me to eat my vegetables
The US system is basically winner take all; if you win a state, or district, or whatever, you get all of the votes apportioned to it. This makes it almost impossible for a legit 3rd party to get a foothold anywhere, since they would have to win all of whatever political level they are competing at to make any gains at all. It's extremely hard to just get a couple of candidates in to start something and expand from there in the US system.
Yeah, ours isn't a strict popular vote either and if the US used something a bit more like our electoral district system I assume it would work better (although it's still a shitty FPTP system that stuck us with a majority government the majority of us didn't want).
I agree that vote splitting is an issue and it has been in Canada. I also understand that a Romney government would be pretty horrific on a scale that's hard to predict. However, a Green vote that was a non-vote doesn't give anything to the Republicans.
I agree that vote splitting is an issue and it has been in Canada. I also understand that a Romney government would be pretty horrific on a scale that's hard to predict. However, a Green vote that was a non-vote doesn't give anything to the Republicans.
I think this debate was the weakest as far as a real debate goes, both candidates have very similar foreign policy viewpoints, only differing on specifics on minor Pakistan, Israel, and Syria from what I saw. There was a reason why both candidates attempted to tangent off the topic because they know it wasn't going anywhere.
As far as who won, Obama defiantly had more gaffes this time, but he was offensive and straight to the point, which is what his campaign needed. Romney was weaker, and quite a few of his messages made not logical sense at all, like giving more support to the Syrian rebels and taking charge... without giving real support and taking charge. He seemed to try to pander too much to both sides which just making his points look stupid. In a sense, he was worse then the "etech e' stech" of view points he usually is, he didn't even shake it the whole way before writing on it again.
As far as who won, Obama defiantly had more gaffes this time, but he was offensive and straight to the point, which is what his campaign needed. Romney was weaker, and quite a few of his messages made not logical sense at all, like giving more support to the Syrian rebels and taking charge... without giving real support and taking charge. He seemed to try to pander too much to both sides which just making his points look stupid. In a sense, he was worse then the "etech e' stech" of view points he usually is, he didn't even shake it the whole way before writing on it again.
- Status