Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Changed my voter registration. I'm now a...

Osiris
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 2:38:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm now a registered Republican in the state of Nevada. Oh the things I do to support Ron Paul.
"Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 2:41:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 2:38:43 PM, Osiris wrote:
I'm now a registered Republican in the state of Nevada. Oh the things I do to support Ron Paul.

But your b...b..bla... erm... african american... how can you not vote democrat? I am sure that's against the constitution.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Osiris
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 2:45:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 2:41:00 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/27/2011 2:38:43 PM, Osiris wrote:
I'm now a registered Republican in the state of Nevada. Oh the things I do to support Ron Paul.

But your b...b..bla... erm... african american... how can you not vote democrat? I am sure that's against the constitution.

Yes, I am and I'm sure it's not.
"Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 2:48:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
yeah i'm actually in the process of figuring out how to change mine right now, so that i can vote in the primaries.

still not sure if i will vote for ron paul. i've been looking at his policies in wiki and they seem to most closely resemble what i stand for out of the candidates. and i iked him on the daily show which always helps haha (jk) can i ask what it is that made you change your party to vote for ron paul?

the only thing is, i'm thinking it will be insignificant. my state always votes democrat, so what is even the point in voting republican in the main election..? =\
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 2:56:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 2:48:07 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
the only thing is, i'm thinking it will be insignificant. my state always votes democrat, so what is even the point in voting republican in the main election..? =\

DING DING DING

Your vote is statistically worthless.
President of DDO
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 2:58:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 2:56:24 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/27/2011 2:48:07 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
the only thing is, i'm thinking it will be insignificant. my state always votes democrat, so what is even the point in voting republican in the main election..? =\

DING DING DING

Your vote is statistically worthless.

Captain America a young woman is losing faith in democracy...
"Not on my watch!"

Sorry I am in a silly mood.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 2:59:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 2:38:43 PM, Osiris wrote:
I'm now a registered Republican in the state of Nevada. Oh the things I do to support Ron Paul.

Good job. Unfortunately you've wasted your time because Paul IS NOT GOING TO WIN. I've been arguing with Geo about this for months. We'll see which of us is right in the end. It's a sad, sad world when someone like Rick Perry is beating Ron Paul, but there you have it.

"The contest for the upcoming 2012 Republican presidential nomination is quickly becoming a two-man race based on recent polling data from USA Today/Gallup, CBS News/NY Times, Bloomberg and CNN. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney are distancing themselves from a number of other candidates with some five or six months remaining before the first primaries. Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul are a distant third" (http://www.depauliaonline.com...).
President of DDO
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 3:01:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 2:59:25 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/27/2011 2:38:43 PM, Osiris wrote:
I'm now a registered Republican in the state of Nevada. Oh the things I do to support Ron Paul.

Good job. Unfortunately you've wasted your time because Paul IS NOT GOING TO WIN. I've been arguing with Geo about this for months. We'll see which of us is right in the end. It's a sad, sad world when someone like Rick Perry is beating Ron Paul, but there you have it.

Are you implying that she should not have done that and voted for whoever looks like they are going to win? Would that NOT constitute a waste of time?
"The contest for the upcoming 2012 Republican presidential nomination is quickly becoming a two-man race based on recent polling data from USA Today/Gallup, CBS News/NY Times, Bloomberg and CNN. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney are distancing themselves from a number of other candidates with some five or six months remaining before the first primaries. Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul are a distant third" (http://www.depauliaonline.com...).
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Osiris
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 3:02:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 2:48:07 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
yeah i'm actually in the process of figuring out how to change mine right now, so that i can vote in the primaries.

still not sure if i will vote for ron paul. i've been looking at his policies in wiki and they seem to most closely resemble what i stand for out of the candidates. and i iked him on the daily show which always helps haha (jk) can i ask what it is that made you change your party to vote for ron paul?

the only thing is, i'm thinking it will be insignificant. my state always votes democrat, so what is even the point in voting republican in the main election..? =\

I had to go on the Nevada government site and request that they mail me the forms. Then filled them out, sent them back, and my new card arrived. As far as Ron Paul goes:
-I like that he thinks that the federal government shouldn't be allowed to pass laws pro or against abortion and that it should be left up to individual states.
-I like that he wants to decriminalize marijuana.
-I like his stance on foreign policy and that he wants to abolish a lot of institutions in our country like the federal reserve.

Among other things...lol
"Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 3:03:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 2:56:24 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/27/2011 2:48:07 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
the only thing is, i'm thinking it will be insignificant. my state always votes democrat, so what is even the point in voting republican in the main election..? =\

DING DING DING

Your vote is statistically worthless.

yeah, its depressing, all these dumb f*cks think their vote is important, and then they go and vote for people because "its what my parents told me" or "he's black" or (this is the real kicker) "he's personable" WTF?! politicians are supposed to be personable! they are deceivers! notice how much MORE personable barack obama is now that it is election time, opposed to how he was circa congress elections?

danielle, what would you propose to be done to change this worthless voting routine? anything that we can do to actually change things?
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 3:03:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 3:00:19 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Looks like Paul isn't going to win. Oh well, would've been interesting.

I think it is comical that some people actually entertained the idea that Paul might win (some were even claiming that he had a good chance of winning) the nomination. It shows a distance between what the people actually want.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 3:06:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm going to just put it out there,and don't think Ron Paul would be a good president. Going on the gold standard would be a disaster. He wants to eliminate quite a bit of programs, not all of them bad.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 3:08:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 3:01:29 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/27/2011 2:59:25 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/27/2011 2:38:43 PM, Osiris wrote:
I'm now a registered Republican in the state of Nevada. Oh the things I do to support Ron Paul.

Good job. Unfortunately you've wasted your time because Paul IS NOT GOING TO WIN. I've been arguing with Geo about this for months. We'll see which of us is right in the end. It's a sad, sad world when someone like Rick Perry is beating Ron Paul, but there you have it.

Are you implying that she should not have done that and voted for whoever looks like they are going to win? Would that NOT constitute a waste of time?

Yes, she should not have spent the time to change her registration. If she wants to make a change, more effort needs to be put into it. The effort she put in was below the quantum delta to effect change (I know how to put big words of dead languages together). Basically it means that the minimum to have any measurable effect requires more energy than she put in.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 3:15:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Oh, the GOP? This GOP? Do you agree with the members of this putrid audience and their cheers at death, and boos to a gay soldier?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 3:16:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 3:01:29 PM, Indophile wrote:
Are you implying that she should not have done that and voted for whoever looks like they are going to win? Would that NOT constitute a waste of time?

I never said she should bother voting at all...
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 3:20:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 3:15:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
Oh, the GOP? This GOP? Do you agree with the members of this putrid audience and their cheers at death, and boos to a gay soldier?






If you listen closely you can hear it was only 2-3 people who were booing. Please don't sterotype the GOP based on a few assh@les.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 3:32:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 3:03:36 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
danielle, what would you propose to be done to change this worthless voting routine? anything that we can do to actually change things?

Well, it would depend on the way the government was set up at the time. If we're operating under the system as it is now, then no I don't think anything can be done to change the way things are. People have been complaining about the 2-party system for awhile now yet nothing has changed in that regard. A libertarian candidate was even forced to run under a Republican ticket because of it.

Can anyone here off the top of their head name off ANY of the 2008 Presidential Candidates from parties other than the Republican candidate (McCain) or Democratic candidate (Obama)? Sure, some might know the Libertarian candidate was Bob Barr, but that's because DDO has a disproportionate number of libertarians compared to the real world. Still, even here people think that they must belong to one of those categories. Does anyone even know the platform of the other parties? Why are parties important in general?

Our choices are so inhibited and the media/society reinforces that. It would require a drastic movement to change things. We expect our candidates to look and act a certain way, and have certain criteria for them which is often non-sensical. First, I would say that the only way to bring more attention to alternatives is to utilize the internet on a mass scale (since it's the only form of media that people can control or contribute to with little to no funding). I think this will be useful in the future as young people are very internet-friendly whereas our parents and grandparents' generations, not so much.

However even if we had more options to choose from (which would help the process) - and by that I mean it not be near absolutely certain that a specific Republican or Democratic candidate would win every single time - I would endorse much smaller government and more direct-democracy. Now, I'm not saying that democracy is the bees knees (it's certainly problematic), but it's an improvement to the current system. I mean our votes for president don't even count. The president is elected by the Electoral College. In December, after the popular election, the electors meet in their respective state capitals and cast their ballots for president and vice president. Theoretically, except in a few states, the EC can actually vote for anybody they want to (but of course in practice they almost always vote for whomever they were pledged to support). The EC is inherently undemocratic and gives certain swing states disproportionate influence in selecting the President.

Ugh. Don't get me started lol. The short answer is more diversity and smaller government :P
President of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 3:36:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 3:32:56 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/27/2011 3:03:36 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
danielle, what would you propose to be done to change this worthless voting routine? anything that we can do to actually change things?

Well, it would depend on the way the government was set up at the time. If we're operating under the system as it is now, then no I don't think anything can be done to change the way things are. People have been complaining about the 2-party system for awhile now yet nothing has changed in that regard. A libertarian candidate was even forced to run under a Republican ticket because of it.

Can anyone here off the top of their head name off ANY of the 2008 Presidential Candidates from parties other than the Republican candidate (McCain) or Democratic candidate (Obama)? Sure, some might know the Libertarian candidate was Bob Barr, but that's because DDO has a disproportionate number of libertarians compared to the real world. Still, even here people think that they must belong to one of those categories. Does anyone even know the platform of the other parties? Why are parties important in general?

Our choices are so inhibited and the media/society reinforces that. It would require a drastic movement to change things. We expect our candidates to look and act a certain way, and have certain criteria for them which is often non-sensical. First, I would say that the only way to bring more attention to alternatives is to utilize the internet on a mass scale (since it's the only form of media that people can control or contribute to with little to no funding). I think this will be useful in the future as young people are very internet-friendly whereas our parents and grandparents' generations, not so much.

However even if we had more options to choose from (which would help the process) - and by that I mean it not be near absolutely certain that a specific Republican or Democratic candidate would win every single time - I would endorse much smaller government and more direct-democracy. Now, I'm not saying that democracy is the bees knees (it's certainly problematic), but it's an improvement to the current system. I mean our votes for president don't even count. The president is elected by the Electoral College. In December, after the popular election, the electors meet in their respective state capitals and cast their ballots for president and vice president. Theoretically, except in a few states, the EC can actually vote for anybody they want to (but of course in practice they almost always vote for whomever they were pledged to support). The EC is inherently undemocratic and gives certain swing states disproportionate influence in selecting the President.

Ugh. Don't get me started lol. The short answer is more diversity and smaller government :P

People don't like too many choices. It's the sad truth of the Paradox of Choice represented in our politics. It is easier to study 2 things and decide what is best between those two, then to study 8 things and decide what is best. That coupled with the fact that your single vote has almost no value, what is the point of even studying a single choice?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 3:44:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 3:36:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
People don't like too many choices. It's the sad truth of the Paradox of Choice represented in our politics. It is easier to study 2 things and decide what is best between those two, then to study 8 things and decide what is best. That coupled with the fact that your single vote has almost no value, what is the point of even studying a single choice?

People don't like choice, or they're conditioned to believe that certain choices are irrelevant? I'm inclined to believe the latter. Otherwise we wouldn't fight for choice. I'm sure that if someone wanted to pass a law saying that we could ONLY have Republican or Democratic candidates, people would be pissed about that despite never having voted otherwise nor planning to. As it stands, our system only allows for the illusion of choice. The fact that most people prefer to remain ignorant, and there are SO MANY of those people (and so many votes to be counted) is why each vote becomes statistically more and more useless. Smaller government is the only way to increase a vote's worth. Some societies may then choose to implement additional voting requirements or policies or whatever.
President of DDO
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 3:45:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 3:32:56 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/27/2011 3:03:36 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
danielle, what would you propose to be done to change this worthless voting routine? anything that we can do to actually change things?


Can anyone here off the top of their head name off ANY of the 2008 Presidential Candidates from parties other than the Republican candidate (McCain) or Democratic candidate (Obama)? Sure, some might know the Libertarian candidate was Bob Barr, but that's because DDO has a disproportionate number of libertarians compared to the real world. Still, even here people think that they must belong to one of those categories. Does anyone even know the platform of the other parties? Why are parties important in general?

to make things easier for our lazy @sses, so that we can just pick a party rather than focus on the actual policies needing changed...

thanks for the dynamic response! It's giving me much to think about. I've really just recently (a few months before i came here) started thinking about politics/economy so its nice to hear as many viewpoints as i can. i generally agree with your sentiments. (especially about the internet being a platform for change..)
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 3:52:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 3:44:01 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/27/2011 3:36:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
People don't like too many choices. It's the sad truth of the Paradox of Choice represented in our politics. It is easier to study 2 things and decide what is best between those two, then to study 8 things and decide what is best. That coupled with the fact that your single vote has almost no value, what is the point of even studying a single choice?

People don't like choice, or they're conditioned to believe that certain choices are irrelevant? I'm inclined to believe the latter. Otherwise we wouldn't fight for choice. I'm sure that if someone wanted to pass a law saying that we could ONLY have Republican or Democratic candidates, people would be pissed about that despite never having voted otherwise nor planning to. As it stands, our system only allows for the illusion of choice. The fact that most people prefer to remain ignorant, and there are SO MANY of those people (and so many votes to be counted) is why each vote becomes statistically more and more useless. Smaller government is the only way to increase a vote's worth. Some societies may then choose to implement additional voting requirements or policies or whatever.

No one wants to pass a law limiting the number of parties (unless it is limited to zero, there are some people that would like that), but studies have shown that people are happier (or less stressed, to be exact) with fewer choices, but it is subconscious, they don't knowingly say "I want fewer choices."

Though I would disagree that small government will give your vote more value, you have to decrease the voting base to do that. If you have small government voted on by 100 million people, you are still 1 out of 100 million voters, and so the likelyhood of you making a change with just your vote is still equally small.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 3:52:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 3:44:01 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/27/2011 3:36:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
People don't like too many choices. It's the sad truth of the Paradox of Choice represented in our politics. It is easier to study 2 things and decide what is best between those two, then to study 8 things and decide what is best. That coupled with the fact that your single vote has almost no value, what is the point of even studying a single choice?

People don't like choice, or they're conditioned to believe that certain choices are irrelevant? I'm inclined to believe the latter. Otherwise we wouldn't fight for choice. I'm sure that if someone wanted to pass a law saying that we could ONLY have Republican or Democratic candidates, people would be pissed about that despite never having voted otherwise nor planning to. As it stands, our system only allows for the illusion of choice. The fact that most people prefer to remain ignorant, and there are SO MANY of those people (and so many votes to be counted) is why each vote becomes statistically more and more useless. Smaller government is the only way to increase a vote's worth. Some societies may then choose to implement additional voting requirements or policies or whatever.

how would a smaller government increase a votes worth? we would still have plenty of stupid people voting for the most popular choice. i hope you don't mind all the questions :)
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 3:54:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 3:45:35 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
thanks for the dynamic response! It's giving me much to think about. I've really just recently (a few months before i came here) started thinking about politics/economy so its nice to hear as many viewpoints as i can. i generally agree with your sentiments. (especially about the internet being a platform for change..)

THAT'S AWESOME! And it actually proves my point -- that the internet needs to be more highly regarded as a platform for change lol. It's the main reason for my interest (and knowledge) in politics too. Ya know, my friend is a huge political activist and I have accompanied her on some excursions. I love a passionate protest as much as the next person. However I've explained to her that for the most part they are absolutely useless. When I went to Washington DC to protest against the war, did that change anything? No. When I went to Wisconsin to protest against Scott Walker taking away collective bargaining rights, did that change anything? No. When I marched for a variety of other causes, never once has anything substantial come out of it. However if I can change the minds of a handful of people on DDO, and they go out and change a few people's minds, and they go out and change a few people's minds, have I accomplished something? Maybe, maybe not. I somehow find more gratification and hope in that course of action. Now I'm not saying we should all just sit around and argue all day lol obviously we need to be proactive as well. I'm just saying that I do think there is merit to platforms like DDO where people can come together and discuss and debate and whatnot. I'm really glad that you're here and that you are honest about your opinions or lack thereof :)
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 3:54:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 3:51:24 PM, inferno wrote:
Ron Paul is a Libertarian. I think you got your cards mixed up dear.

He is running as a Republican.
President of DDO
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 3:54:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 3:51:24 PM, inferno wrote:
Ron Paul is a Libertarian. I think you got your cards mixed up dear.

he's a libertarian running in the republican primaries... i'm not sure how this happened but it did. (i guess he chose to go republican to increase the chance of votes? not really sure how that works)
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 3:56:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 3:51:24 PM, inferno wrote:
Ron Paul is a Libertarian. I think you got your cards mixed up dear.

He's running for the Republican nomination because people only vote Republican or Democrat.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 3:57:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 3:36:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/27/2011 3:32:56 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/27/2011 3:03:36 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
danielle, what would you propose to be done to change this worthless voting routine? anything that we can do to actually change things?

Well, it would depend on the way the government was set up at the time. If we're operating under the system as it is now, then no I don't think anything can be done to change the way things are. People have been complaining about the 2-party system for awhile now yet nothing has changed in that regard. A libertarian candidate was even forced to run under a Republican ticket because of it.

Can anyone here off the top of their head name off ANY of the 2008 Presidential Candidates from parties other than the Republican candidate (McCain) or Democratic candidate (Obama)? Sure, some might know the Libertarian candidate was Bob Barr, but that's because DDO has a disproportionate number of libertarians compared to the real world. Still, even here people think that they must belong to one of those categories. Does anyone even know the platform of the other parties? Why are parties important in general?

Our choices are so inhibited and the media/society reinforces that. It would require a drastic movement to change things. We expect our candidates to look and act a certain way, and have certain criteria for them which is often non-sensical. First, I would say that the only way to bring more attention to alternatives is to utilize the internet on a mass scale (since it's the only form of media that people can control or contribute to with little to no funding). I think this will be useful in the future as young people are very internet-friendly whereas our parents and grandparents' generations, not so much.

However even if we had more options to choose from (which would help the process) - and by that I mean it not be near absolutely certain that a specific Republican or Democratic candidate would win every single time - I would endorse much smaller government and more direct-democracy. Now, I'm not saying that democracy is the bees knees (it's certainly problematic), but it's an improvement to the current system. I mean our votes for president don't even count. The president is elected by the Electoral College. In December, after the popular election, the electors meet in their respective state capitals and cast their ballots for president and vice president. Theoretically, except in a few states, the EC can actually vote for anybody they want to (but of course in practice they almost always vote for whomever they were pledged to support). The EC is inherently undemocratic and gives certain swing states disproportionate influence in selecting the President.

Ugh. Don't get me started lol. The short answer is more diversity and smaller government :P

People don't like too many choices. It's the sad truth of the Paradox of Choice represented in our politics. It is easier to study 2 things and decide what is best between those two, then to study 8 things and decide what is best. That coupled with the fact that your single vote has almost no value, what is the point of even studying a single choice?

The US voting system basically ensures that there is a two party system. Any third party runner just acts a spoiler, so people don't vote for them.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 3:58:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 3:44:01 PM, Danielle wrote:
People don't like choice, or they're conditioned to believe that certain choices are irrelevant? I'm inclined to believe the latter.

There is certainly an upper limit to choice before people get turned off. I remember a psychological experiment where the researchers noted the effect of buying habits of people given various degrees of choice when buying jam, mustard and so on. There was an inverse correlation between the amount of choice customers were given and the likelihood that they would buy anything.

I suspect that the average person, who doesn't care all that much about politics, has enough to get his head round with evaluating a few parties and a dozen candidates without increasing that number. It would probably decrease voter turnout dramatically if America had twelve major parties instead of two.