Election 2008 - How Much Do You Care?

[Epee_Pox]

So, how important to you personally is this 2008 U.S. presidential election? Is it all-consuming? Could you care less?

[Inquartata]

Not very. The outcome is I think in very little doubt: The eventual Democratic nominee will win. And since the only one of the Democratic candidates I found interesting, Richardson, has already dropped out, I am just bracing myself for a thorough rogering at this point...

Clinton frightens me, Obama is too inexperienced, and Edwards is too far to the left IMO.

Ah, well. The pendulum swings.

PS The poll is...

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

PS The poll is...

Well, duh.

(I momentarily considered having "none of the above" and "more than one of the above" as options, which would have un-flawified it, but then Inq might not have participated, which would have made it even MORE flawed. I went with the lesser of two evils.)

[mrbiggs]

Not much in that most of the candidates I don't like are considered to be unlikely to win.

Much in that I plan on voting for it, and I think it would be bad for our country if the wrong person wins.

[Inquartata]

Fortunately ( in that respect at least ) our form of government was expressly designed to retard the amount of damage any one leader can do to the long-run health of the system. Which is why I fear that supporters of Ron Paul are fooling themselves to think that if he were elected he could actually accomplish any of his main draconian changes: Congress, the courts and the bureaucracies are just about certain to oppose him vigorously at every stage. And absent another major transformational event like 9-11 I very much doubt that 8 years are enough to "knock a hole in that dam".

UNfortunately, we are likely to see another period of one Party controlling both the Executive and the Legislature. That can indeed be a bad thing...

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Not very. The outcome is I think in very little doubt: The eventual Democratic nominee will win. And since the only one of the Democratic candidates I found interesting, Richardson, has already dropped out, I am just bracing myself for a thorough rogering at this point...

Clinton frightens me, Obama is too inexperienced, and Edwards is too far to the left IMO.

Well, it seems perfectly possible that Richardson could get a VP spot on the DEM ticket!

A Clinton/Obama (or the other way around) ticket seems a tad unlikely - they seem to dislike each other too much, and it does not seem (to me) be a good idea from the point of vote-getting. The white male demographic would be wide open to any GOP opponent.

BTW: It is perfectly possible the the eventual DEM nominee will self-destruct, opening the way for a viable GOP nominee.

BTW: Under the voting systems that I have suggested - one of which you have expressly disagreed with - Richardson would not have had any reason to drop out of the DEM race. On the contrary, the DEM leadership would have wanted to have him still running. In that voting system, you could have voted for Richardson without having to worry that you would be wasting your vote, no matter how slim his winning chances would have been. Not only that, you could also have indicated your relative preferences among Obama/Clinton/Edwards, and all candidates in all other parties on one ticket. But you disagreed with that system.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Unfortunately, we are likely to see another period of one Party controlling both the Executive and the Legislature. That can indeed be a bad thing...

That exact bad thing happens all the time in most European countries, it is a featured of the Parliamentary system. You might not like such countries, but the fact that that has happened - in some cases for decades on end - without those countries delving into anarchy/civil war indicates that its badness is limited.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Inquartata]

I dunno, I think the situation in France has come close a few times recently...

I would also prefer not to have neo-Nazis and Communists in my government. ( Openly, that is. )

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I dunno, I think the situation in France has come close a few times recently...

As is the case with Basque and Norther Ireland, that is due to reasons other than the voting system.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I would also prefer not to have neo-Nazis and Communists in my government. ( Openly, that is. )

Name a parliamentary-system country - after 1945 - that has had neo-Nazis in its government.
Italy has had communists in its government, in coalition with ministers from other parties. However, since the communists have had several 10´s of % support among the voters, why should they not have part of the power? If a party is #1 or #2 among the voters, should they be blocked by law? What kind of democracy is that?

Furthermore, you have not forwarded a reason for why those parties would become part of the US. givt. if my suggested voting system were to be implemented.

BTW: I disagree with the ideologies of those parties, but mu only recourse is - and should be - to debate and vote accordingly.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!




That exact bad thing happens all the time in most European countries, it is a featured of the Parliamentary system. You might not like such countries, but the fact that that has happened - in some cases for decades on end - without those countries delving into anarchy/civil war indicates that its badness is limited.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

However, the Parliamentary system limits the party's power in ways that our system does not.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

UNfortunately, we are likely to see another period of one Party controlling both the Executive and the Legislature. That can indeed be a bad thing...

We just had 6 years of that, and it could have been worse. Although I do agree that the net result was negative for the country.

[Zilverzmurfen]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Name a parliamentary-system country - after 1945 - that has had neo-Nazis in its government.

I think Austria would come pretty close to that.

[Lemonaide]

I think this could be one of the more important elections in US History. It's not only historical because it includes a female, with an ex-president-husband, but african american, and for the Republicans - a sort moderate, a ken-doll and a mayor. For me it's really important to vote for the person who can bring about peaceful negotiations between the us and middle east; fix whatever issues there are with immigration - which seems to be winding down, come up with something interesting to replace oil dependence - gas prices are hovering btw 2.70-3.30 a gallon, and basically make the dollar sound. I think we were living in a bubble of a false economy and that we now have to prove ourselves to the world that we have the 'right stuff', not just mechanically like in space, but here on the planet earth.

[SFfencer]

Originally Posted by ReverseLunge

AS A HARD WORKING BLACK MAN I WON'T BE VOTING FOR OBAMA. SO YOU DON'T EITHER!!!

I'm just making sure I quote that, before you change it.


Go Obama!!!