[luke warm]

Apollo81, on Jan 15 2008, 09:50 AM, said:

I like most of Ron Paul's political positions.

http://en.wikipedia....ons_of_Ron_Paul

yeah, it's hard to argue against a lot of his positions once the reasons are known

[jtfanclub]

ArtK78, on Jan 15 2008, 02:56 PM, said:

However, after what Bush and his cronies did to him in South Carolina in 2000, I cannot accept his subsequent support of Bush. I lost my respect for him.

Really? I lost my respect for him when he kissed up to "God made 9/11 happen because we didn't kill all the gays" right-wing zealots. Last summer he stopped trying to kiss up to those guys (and Bush for that matter) and that, IMHO, is why their campaign took off again.

The link said I was closest to Richardson, which is interesting, because I did in fact support him. Now that he's gone, I'm for Obama.

If it comes down to Hillary vs. McCain, I'm not certain, but I think I'll go McCain. Otherwise, I'll go Democrat.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jan 16 2008, 02:03 AM, said:

Apollo81, on Jan 15 2008, 09:50 AM, said:

I like most of Ron Paul's political positions.

http://en.wikipedia....ons_of_Ron_Paul

yeah, it's hard to argue against a lot of his positions once the reasons are known

I think that David Boaz, President of the Cato Institute delivered the best quote about the Ron Paul campaign

Quote

I didn’t know what my closest associates were doing over my signature, so give me responsibility for the federal government.

don't get me wrong, I normally have zero use for the Cato Institute, but sometimes they get things right.

[jocdelevat]

[QUOTE]
The Republicans are split and would rather lose the election than compromise on some issues. [QUOTE]


I"m surprise about that. My brother and my relatives all republicans lives in different places think the same, watch the same channel etc.

[mike777]

[quote name='jocdelevat' date='Jan 15 2008, 07:06 PM'] [QUOTE]
The Republicans are split and would rather lose the election than compromise on some issues. [QUOTE]


I"m surprise about that. My brother and my relatives all republicans lives in different places think the same, watch the same channel etc. [/QUOTE]


Many would rather stay at home than vote for a prochoice candidate.

Many seem to really hate anything smacking of amnesty and may stay home.

I do not advocate this or agree with this.

But in America many vote on one issue and one issue alone, abortion.

Have Obama or Hillary come out 100% against abortion and see how many votes change......
See how many will never vote for Rudi no matter what he says about judges....

[Winstonm]

Either David Hasselhoff or Britney Spears, depending on which celeb gets the most air time on Entertainment Tonight between now and eclection time.

Quote

Many would rather stay at home than vote for a prochoice candidate.

I'd rather stay home than vote for any of the present un-candid-ates. Same party; different branches; why bother?

Besides, my non-vote will still be counted in Chicago as another "stamp the rooster".

[helene_t]

I would vote for whatever democrat is more likely to win the election. Whether or not I like him/her and his/her views would be completely irrelevant.

Electoral systems all over the World encourage people to vote tactically, voting on the basis of how they think other voters will think yet other voters will think etc. ultimately obscuring pretty much the voice of the people.

There has been enough research done about how to design an electoral that does not encourage tactical voting. Google on "absolute majority rule" for example. I wonder why such a scheme hasn't been implemented anywhere. Presumably it's in someone's interests that voters think they can screw each other.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on Jan 16 2008, 09:54 AM, said:

I would vote for whatever democrat is more likely to win the election. Whether or not I like him/her and his/her views would be completely irrelevant.

I wouldn't. I'd look at every individual candidate, and vote for the one I think most likely to run the country as I would like it to be run. If he happened not to be a Republican (I'm a registered Republican) that would be fine with me.

A bit of an aside - I said I'm a registered Republican, and I am. l've considered changing that to Libertarian, though - I probably should do that, since the views of the LP are much closer to my own than either of the major parties. I had a friend who was registered as a Democrat, even though he agreed much more with the Republicans. I asked him once why he did that. He said "I want to know what the enemy is up to."

Note that in New York State, where I live, the two major parties have a stranglehold on the ballot - the top two lines on every ballot are "Republican" and "Democrat", and the other lines are for third parties which have met the approval of the two big guys - last time I checked, there was no "Libertarian Party" line. You can't vote in a party primary if you're not registered in that party - and you can only register with one party at a time. I find it interesting that the candidate for, for example the Conservative Party is almost always the same candidate listed for the RP; similarly for the Liberal Party and the DP. And I long for a box labelled "None of the above is acceptable".

This system is "sort of" democracy, at best. I don't see it changing any time soon, though.

Britney Spears can't run her own life, much less the country's. Hasselhoff, I don't know. I might vote for Arnold, but that'd require a Constitutional Amendment, and I'm not willing to go that far.

[Al_U_Card]

helene_t, on Jan 16 2008, 09:54 AM, said:

I would vote for whatever democrat is more likely to win the election. Whether or not I like him/her and his/her views would be completely irrelevant.

Electoral systems all over the World encourage people to vote tactically, voting on the basis of how they think other voters will think yet other voters will think etc. ultimately obscuring pretty much the voice of the people.

There has been enough research done about how to design an electoral that does not encourage tactical voting. Google on "absolute majority rule" for example. I wonder why such a scheme hasn't been implemented anywhere. Presumably it's in someone's interests that voters think they can screw each other.

I do kind of like that 1-2-3 choice for getting the "most popular" but I would like even better the "proposition" ballot, where people vote for the man AND select how to go on certain issues debated before the election ie healthcare vs no healthcare etc. Easier to keep their lies from being forgotten.

[mike777]

"I wouldn't. I'd look at every individual candidate, and vote for the one I think most likely to run the country as I would like it to be run. If he happened not to be a Republican (I'm a registered Republican) that would be fine with me."

OF course the President does not run the country though many may prefer they did. Sort of what elections in the USA are all about. How much should the central government or one person run the country?

[mike777]

"Electoral systems all over the World encourage people to vote tactically"


Yes the voting for government in the USA is purposely set up for this, not a pure democracy.

I think most framers of government are scared to death of a pure democracy, the tyranny of a pure democracy.

[skjaeran]

I'd never ever vote for a republican.
From over here I can't say I know the candidates enough, but I guess I'd prefer Hillary with Obama as VP.

[mike777]

skaeran, on Jan 16 2008, 06:18 PM, said:

I'd never ever vote for a republican.
From over here I can't say I know the candidates enough, but I guess I'd prefer Hillary with Obama as VP.

Never ever is a very long time.....indeed very long time

Why never, ever?

[blackshoe]

mike777, on Jan 16 2008, 04:40 PM, said:

OF course the President does not run the country... How much should the central government or one person run the country?

He's the chief executive. That he has checks and balances to deal with in Congress and the Supreme Court doesn't change that. As to that last question, not much, IMO.

[helene_t]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 16 2008, 07:58 PM, said:

I do kind of like that 1-2-3 choice for getting the "most popular" but I would like even better the "proposition" ballot, where people vote for the man AND select how to go on certain issues debated before the election ie healthcare vs no healthcare etc.  Easier to keep their lies from being forgotten.

Yes, that's another issue, the US president has way too much power. I'd prefer members of the government and heads of state to be selected purely on the basis of their management qualifications. What they think of proposed legislation (pro or contra war, gay marriage, tax increases etc.) ought to be irrelevant since the legislation is the parliament's business, not the government's, let alone the head-of-state's.

[Al_U_Card]

The framers were sensible enough to see the inherent stability of the tripod and to understand the reasoned, dynamic and popular forms of movement that drive the political process. Each element, when represented adequately, provides the impetus to ensure a balanced and effective political system.

[mike777]

helene_t, on Jan 17 2008, 03:56 AM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Jan 16 2008, 07:58 PM, said:

I do kind of like that 1-2-3 choice for getting the "most popular" but I would like even better the "proposition" ballot, where people vote for the man AND select how to go on certain issues debated before the election ie healthcare vs no healthcare etc.  Easier to keep their lies from being forgotten.

Yes, that's another issue, the US president has way too much power. I'd prefer members of the government and heads of state to be selected purely on the basis of their management qualifications. What they think of proposed legislation (pro or contra war, gay marriage, tax increases etc.) ought to be irrelevant since the legislation is the parliament's business, not the government's, let alone the head-of-state's.

You do not consider the parliment the government?
You do not think people should propose legislation or the head of state? What they think is irrelevant?
Of course parliment would have to pass it but but proposing is different.

[helene_t]

mike777, on Jan 17 2008, 05:39 PM, said:

You do not consider the parliment the government?

In American terminology: Congress is not the same as government.

Quote

You do not think people should propose legislation or the head of state? [....] Of course parliament would have to pass it but but proposing is different.

As I see it, the reasons why government has the task of proposing legislation is purely technical. It should not be seen as a way for the government to exercise political power. If a sufficient large number of parliamentarians, or other legitimate body, wants the government to propose a law, then the government must do so even if it's against the particular law.

[mike777]

helene_t, on Jan 17 2008, 11:04 AM, said:

mike777, on Jan 17 2008, 05:39 PM, said:

You do not consider the parliment the government?

In American terminology: Congress is not the same as government.

Quote

You do not think people should propose legislation or the head of state? [....] Of course parliament would have to pass it but but proposing is different.

As I see it, the reasons why government has the task of proposing legislation is purely technical. It should not be seen as a way for the government to exercise political power. If a sufficient large number of parliamentarians, or other legitimate body, wants the government to propose a law, then the government must do so even if it's against the particular law.

I do not fully understand what you are saying in your posts, but it sounds scary as hell.

[helene_t]

I find it a scary idea that a single person should have the mandate to veto legislation. Or that such a small group of persons as the government should have the right to delay or even block proposed legislation on the basis of their own political viewpoints. Or that voters should try to balance managerial qualifications and political views of the candidates.

And I grew up in a small country without international ambitions. In a big country it would be much more scary.