The American Voter: Say It Ain't So!

[Stormy]

If you watch this short video, you will see how ordinary Americans explain why they're voting for a particular candidate. If you think this is an anomaly, you would be wrong. How can the American people be so uninformed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zsr0UpVjoE&NR=1

[Columbus]

"Obama because he's black."

"McCain because he'll protect the country."


Typical...

[Stormy]

"Obama because he's black."

"McCain because he'll protect the country."


Typical...

[bold highlite mine]

And he can dance.....

[Stormy]

Instead of the right to bear arms, we should restrict the right to vote.

Not restrict; control who gets the right to vote based on issue knowledge. A voter needs to summarize the issues presented by the candidates. If you have no knowledge of the issues, you have no right to cast a vote. Period.

I believe voting rights are more important than background checks for carry permits. (here come the spitballs)

[Taylor13]

I think it would change the whole political field if you had to be a certain amount of smart to actually vote, that'd be hilarious.

[Columbus]

I think it would change the whole political field if you had to be a certain amount of smart to actually vote, that'd be hilarious.

Irony...

[JasperST4]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/why_most_voters_shouldnt_vote.html

Moreover, many aren't any better at navigating the political map -- some people don't even know the name of our vice president (hard to believe, but true). Despite this, there still are those who would convince the uninformed to vote, even though when pulling the lever at a polling place, the latter have no more grasp of the consequences of their actions than if they were to pull one in a casino.

Yet, when some encourage the ignorant to vote, there is method to their madness. The people I speak of do in fact care about the "process," it's just that their process -- that "systematic series of actions directed to some end" -- probably isn't the same as yours. This is because they seek a very different end: The attainment of power.

The people I refer to are liberals.

[DaLAW]

Of course most American voters are ignorant. Anybody whose followed any election could tell you that. People don't know whats important, they just know about partisanship. We see it on here. Dummies more concerned about 'Libs' and making simple stereotypes, etc. Liberals do it too, but since the overwhelming majority here are Conservative, just pointing out the obvious. So the political process here in America, its just a two-party system so people are so stupid, they allow themselves to get caught up in it. Sad but true...

[PB3021]

Not restrict; control who gets the right to vote based on issue knowledge. A voter needs to summarize the issues presented by the candidates. If you have no knowledge of the issues, you have no right to cast a vote. Period.

I believe voting rights are more important than background checks for carry permits. (here come the spitballs)

I would agree with that. No spitballs here. However, I can imagine the fallout from such a plan. Just picture the "motor voter" proponents flipping out. Without stupid people and those dependent upon the gov't for "cradle to grave" services, they'd lose many votes.

[Stormy]

Of course most American voters are ignorant. Anybody whose followed any election could tell you that. People don't know whats important, they just know about partisanship. We see it on here. Dummies more concerned about 'Libs' and making simple stereotypes, etc. Liberals do it too, but since the overwhelming majority here are Conservative, just pointing out the obvious. So the political process here in America, its just a two-party system so people are so stupid, they allow themselves to get caught up in it. Sad but true...

I couldn't agree with you more. As long as you pretend to defend the 'uniter', or pretend to vote for McPain, whatever you post, is alright. It's a big pizzing contest as to who can outridicule the 'lib' post.

[Columbus]

Of course most American voters are ignorant. Anybody whose followed any election could tell you that. People don't know whats important, they just know about partisanship. We see it on here. Dummies more concerned about 'Libs' and making simple stereotypes, etc. Liberals do it too, but since the overwhelming majority here are Conservative, just pointing out the obvious. So the political process here in America, its just a two-party system so people are so stupid, they allow themselves to get caught up in it. Sad but true...

+1 DaLAW, +1.

[JasperST4]

So the political process here in America, its just a two-party system so people are so stupid, they allow themselves to get caught up in it. Sad but true...

Yes, both sides tend to generalize the other but those generalizations aren't without reason. People should be more informed but it isn't conservatives trying to shut down free speech with the "Fairness Doctrine". Those kinds of restrictions and the mindset that accommodates them come from the left, is it wrong to recognize those differences?

I also disagree that the two party system is flawed, look at European countries that have multiparty systems, they are always in turmoil, have little unity and swing to extremes rather quickly. The two party system insures a steadier course with changes taking place within the parties. It takes longer to move the people within a party than to overthrow smaller party denominations.

It isn't a law here but a status quo, any group can form a party but no third party has really done well. They don't have the power base to compete and I don't see it as a bad thing because I recognize that the masses are too easily manipulated. If we have alot of ignorant voters, how is the situation going to be better if we have alot of ignorant voters with more choices?

[Stormy]

I also disagree that the two party system is flawed, look at European countries that have multiparty systems, they are always in turmoil, have little unity and swing to extremes rather quickly. The two party system insures a steadier course with changes taking place within the parties. It takes longer to move the people within a party than to overthrow smaller party denominations.

[bold highlite mine]

...and this is what you fear? Turmoil generates thought. And thought generates responsible legislation. I like that.

It isn't a law here but a status quo, any group can form a party but no third party has really done well. They don't have the power base to compete and I don't see it as a bad thing because I recognize that the masses are too easily manipulated. If we have alot of ignorant voters, how is the situation going to be better if we have alot of ignorant voters with more choices?

Ignorant voters we have plenty of. Especially those, who if they understood the system better, would understand the immense difficulty third partys face in being placed on primary ballots. Not only difficulty from the rules established by the two partys, who work diligently placing obstacles in their path, but from the main stream media, who will avoid press coverage of the third party candidate at all costs; a media blackout of a candidate.

Ron Paul is a perfect example of a candidate who was well loved by a huge portion of the population, having raised $4 million dollars in one day, but was ostracized for his 'too conservative' views on the Federal Reserve, the Fedearl Reserve notes, and the IRS. His strength was in knowlege of the Constitution, which by the way, irritates and scares the hell out of neocons.

I ask, how can a candidate be 'too conservative' for a neocon? Am I missing something? Or, are neocons not the true republicans they pretend to be?

So, let's not speak of a 'no power base' when we speak of a third party. Let's instead speak of eliminating the stranglehold the democratic and republican power bosses hold over a two party(?) system.

[JasperST4]

[bold highlite mine]
...and this is what you fear? Turmoil generates thought. And thought generates responsible legislation.

It can. It can also lead to bloodshed and misery. I wouldn't invite turmoil, that's sort of like deliberately infecting yourself with a illness so that you can enjoy the healing process.

Ignorant voters we have plenty of. Especially those, who if they understood the system better, would understand the immense difficulty third partys face in being placed on primary ballots. Not only difficulty from the rules established by the two partys, who work diligently placing obstacles in their path, but from the main stream media, who will avoid press coverage of the third party candidate at all costs; a media blackout of a candidate.

Ron Paul is a perfect example of a candidate who was well loved by a huge portion of the population, having raised $4 million dollars in one day, but was ostracized for his 'too conservative' views on the Federal Reserve, the Fedearl Reserve notes, and the IRS. His strength was in knowlege of the Constitution, which by the way, irritates and scares the hell out of neocons.

I ask, how can a candidate be 'too conservative' for a neocon? Am I missing something? Or, are neocons not the true republicans they pretend to be?

Ron Paul was largely ignored because he's a nut and was unelectable to the office he was seeking. He was on the debates as I recall, no one blocked him, it was just that the more we got to know him the worse he looked. Yes, he has some good ideas, and it was smart to try to win in an electable party instead of running as a third party candidate like last time but his isolationist views probably hurt him the most. It won't work anymore, too many people remember 9/11. Even most liberals aren't that naive. Many of his views are Libertarian, why blame Conservatives for not being Libertarian, labeling them neocons just makes you look bitter.

So, let's not speak of a 'no power base' when we speak of a third party. Let's instead speak of eliminating the stranglehold the democratic and republican power bosses hold over a two party(?) system.

Well, since neither McCain nor Obama were the respective prospects from most of their party leaders I don't believe their stranglehold is as severe as you think. They couldn't stop Perot from spoiling the election for Republicans or Nader for Democrats either, third parties can lose or cause others to lose but they haven't won a national election yet.
Blaming party bosses is just a simple way to answer a complex issue.

[Stormy]

: Stormy

...and this is what you fear? Turmoil generates thought. And thought generates responsible legislation.

: Jasper

It can. It can also lead to bloodshed and misery. I wouldn't invite turmoil, that's sort of like deliberately infecting yourself with a illness so that you can enjoy the healing process.

Isn't that how medicines are discovered? Remember, the illness came first. Now you've got to replicate the symptoms in order to discover a cure. It's impossible to do research on a dying patient. Such is the political process; without the original turmoil within the legislative body, the system must continue masking the illness with a hit & miss approach in the hopes of a 'cure'.

: Stormy

Ignorant voters we have plenty of. Especially those, who if they understood the system better, would understand the immense difficulty third partys face in being placed on primary ballots. Not only difficulty from the rules established by the two partys, who work diligently placing obstacles in their path, but from the main stream media, who will avoid press coverage of the third party candidate at all costs; a media blackout of a candidate.

Ron Paul is a perfect example of a candidate who was well loved by a huge portion of the population, having raised $4 million dollars in one day, but was ostracized for his 'too conservative' views on the Federal Reserve, the Fedearl Reserve notes, and the IRS. His strength was in knowlege of the Constitution, which by the way, irritates and scares the hell out of neocons.

I ask, how can a candidate be 'too conservative' for a neocon? Am I missing something? Or, are neocons not the true republicans they pretend to be?

: Jasper

Ron Paul was largely ignored because he's a nut and was unelectable to the office he was seeking. He was on the debates as I recall, no one blocked him, it was just that the more we got to know him the worse he looked. Yes, he has some good ideas, and it was smart to try to win in an electable party instead of running as a third party candidate like last time but his isolationist views probably hurt him the most. It won't work anymore, too many people remember 9/11. Even most liberals aren't that naive. Many of his views are Libertarian, why blame Conservatives for not being Libertarian, labeling them neocons just makes you look bitter.

I disagree Ron Paul was a 'nut', as you point out. You may have considered him a nut, and that is your right. As for being unelectable, again, that is your opinion, and, I might add, an assumption. I didn't consider him a nut, nor did the many hundreds of thousands of Americans who voted for him.

Yes, he was blocked. Either the cameras weren't on him during the debates, or questions were not put to him, or he wasn't given the time to answer the questions that were asked, or commercials would cut off portions of his talk, or the main stream media wouldn't carry any of his speeches. The list is endless.

What does isolationism have to do with 9/11? I strongly believe America should've reinforced their borders, strenghtened the dollar, and stopped driving manufacturing to China. For starters. What does 9/11 have to do with that?

: Stormy

So, let's not speak of a 'no power base' when we speak of a third party. Let's instead speak of eliminating the stranglehold the democratic and republican power bosses hold over a two party(?) system.

: Jasper

Well, since neither McCain nor Obama were the respective prospects from most of their party leaders I don't believe their stranglehold is as severe as you think. They couldn't stop Perot from spoiling the election for Republicans or Nader for Democrats either, third parties can lose or cause others to lose but they haven't won a national election yet.

Blaming party bosses is just a simple way to answer a complex issue.

The fact that McCain or Obama were not respective prospects of their party leaders, does not remove the fact that party bosses have complete control of the electoral process. Whoever would've been the democratic or republican choice, would've come from one of these partys; it's the 'electable' party, and no other party is electable, as you seem to feel. Voters are given the false impression that a vote for a third party candidate is a 'wasted' vote, and should be avoided. What the voters fail to see is that, a vote, for whom ever, is not wasted. Voting is not a horse race where the money is on the winner. Electing an candidate for public office shouldn't be viewed as putting money on our table. If it is, then America is in bad shape.