bush want's you to know what he thinks of you....
Forum rules
Please read the Forum rules and policies before posting.
Please read the Forum rules and policies before posting.
- cowsmanaut
- Moo Master
- Posts: 4378
- Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:53 am
- Location: canada
well, you didn't specify that either was the better. However, as I stated.. it could be assumed that you voted for bush since you stated "us DUMB people" including yourself from a statement of people voting for bush.
To choose one over the other begs the assumption that one of them apealed ever so slightly more to you than the other.. even though both may be in general appaling to you.
on a whole I feel sorry for the lot of us. When choosing a leader for ANY of our countries it should never be an issue of the "lesser evil" it's something that should be "who has our best interests at heart" however..that is a dreamers ideal and likley never to be reality..
having to vote pains me when I look at what I have to choose from.. but if I don't vote I can't complain about who was chosen..
moo
To choose one over the other begs the assumption that one of them apealed ever so slightly more to you than the other.. even though both may be in general appaling to you.
on a whole I feel sorry for the lot of us. When choosing a leader for ANY of our countries it should never be an issue of the "lesser evil" it's something that should be "who has our best interests at heart" however..that is a dreamers ideal and likley never to be reality..
having to vote pains me when I look at what I have to choose from.. but if I don't vote I can't complain about who was chosen..
moo
But if you vote, you took part in the process and so can't complain just because you didn't get the result you wanted. I think every ballot should have a 'I support none of the above' or 'I feel disenfranchised'. Then that statement would be true, and then it would be interesting to see by what margin any party or candidate was madated.cows wrote:but if I don't vote I can't complain about who was chosen..
- cowsmanaut
- Moo Master
- Posts: 4378
- Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:53 am
- Location: canada
well, I certainly can complain if things didn't go the way I voted and now the country or province has gone to the pot. I can complain more people didn't vote the way I did.. that they didn't see what a slimeball so and so was etc... where as, if I do not vote.. then I didn't make any effort to make a change to choose whom I think may be the better choice..
anyway.. just me ranting away.. nothing unusual..
(did I mention I was robbed on the bus yesterday?... could account for my bitterness)
moo
anyway.. just me ranting away.. nothing unusual..
(did I mention I was robbed on the bus yesterday?... could account for my bitterness)
moo
- Gambit37
- Should eat more pies
- Posts: 13720
- Joined: Wed May 31, 2000 1:57 pm
- Location: Location, Location
- Contact:
Now that would be an interesting proposition. I am not a political animal, but I know that there are very few persuasive arguments that automatically would have me vote Labour or Lib Dem or whatever. Beo's suggestion would probably be my preferred option in terms of my position, but of course would be a 'wasted' vote.I think every ballot should have a 'I support none of the above' or 'I feel disenfranchised'
As for the American elections, it seems clear that many American citizens do what probably every country does when they don't know better: vote for the personality rather than the policy. The number of people on the BBC quotes page that gave religious or moral reasons for voting scares me. You have to start from a place of 'no ethics' in all politics and look purely at it impassively and objectively at policy level, and very few people ever do that. I'm not saying that all politicians are unethical, I'm saying that voters generally go on 'gut feeling' if they don't know better and that's why "uninformed" (not DUMB) people simply should not be allowed to vote. If you don't know what you're voting for, how can your vote help in the right way?
For the record at the last local elections I voted Green. Many people I spoke to said it was a wasted vote because they would never get power. That's true, but how can it be wasted when it's what best represented my views at the time? What people seem to forget is what a democratically elected government is for: You vote allows you to put in power a party/ideal that best represents your views and who will take their direction from the will and needs of the people. Most governments don't work that way: it's more a case of 'Now we're in power, we'll tell you how to live'. Hence the proliferation of demonstrations and public outcry over bad decisions made by governments.
I feel sorry for the people of America who basically have no real choices. Bush vs. Kerry wasn't really a true political contest at all.
- Gambit37
- Should eat more pies
- Posts: 13720
- Joined: Wed May 31, 2000 1:57 pm
- Location: Location, Location
- Contact:
Here's something interesting I found, not sure of the original source:
A Zimbabwe politician was quoted as saying children should study the U.S. election event closely because it shows that election fraud is not only a third world phenomenon. He illustrated his point by saying:
"Imagine that we read of an election occurring anywhere in the third world in which the self-declared winner was the son of the former prime minister and that former prime minister was, himself, the former head of that nation's secret police (the CIA).
"Imagine the self-declared winner lost the popular vote but won based on some old colonial holdover from the nation's pre-democracy past [the Electoral College].
"Imagine that the self-declared winner's 'victory' turned on disputed votes cast in a province governed by his brother.
"Imagine that the poorly drafted ballots of one district, a district heavily favoring the self-declared winner's opponent, led thousands of voters to vote for the wrong candidate.
"None of us would deem such an election to be representative of anything other than the self-declared winner's will to power. All of us, I imagine, would wearily turn the page thinking that it was another sad tale of pitiful pre- or anti-democracy peoples in some strange, faraway elsewhere."
A Zimbabwe politician was quoted as saying children should study the U.S. election event closely because it shows that election fraud is not only a third world phenomenon. He illustrated his point by saying:
"Imagine that we read of an election occurring anywhere in the third world in which the self-declared winner was the son of the former prime minister and that former prime minister was, himself, the former head of that nation's secret police (the CIA).
"Imagine the self-declared winner lost the popular vote but won based on some old colonial holdover from the nation's pre-democracy past [the Electoral College].
"Imagine that the self-declared winner's 'victory' turned on disputed votes cast in a province governed by his brother.
"Imagine that the poorly drafted ballots of one district, a district heavily favoring the self-declared winner's opponent, led thousands of voters to vote for the wrong candidate.
"None of us would deem such an election to be representative of anything other than the self-declared winner's will to power. All of us, I imagine, would wearily turn the page thinking that it was another sad tale of pitiful pre- or anti-democracy peoples in some strange, faraway elsewhere."
- Gambit37
- Should eat more pies
- Posts: 13720
- Joined: Wed May 31, 2000 1:57 pm
- Location: Location, Location
- Contact:
And this is the one of the saddest (and I mean that in the original sense of the word) sites I have seen for a long time:
http://www.sorryeverybody.com/
http://www.sorryeverybody.com/
- Gambit37
- Should eat more pies
- Posts: 13720
- Joined: Wed May 31, 2000 1:57 pm
- Location: Location, Location
- Contact:
And some other interesting stuff election related:
http://ideamouth.com/voterfraud.htm
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65623,00.html
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645, ... ry_related
http://ideamouth.com/voterfraud.htm
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65623,00.html
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645, ... ry_related
As my leftie-pinko-commie liberal history teacher says, "Hey, at least the system works. There is a safe transfer of power with every US election and there is no civil war. As for Kerry losing, I guess the people have spoken."
I agree with him. If 57% of the US is made of stupid people and they vote stupidly, at least it is representative. If the majority of the US is making a wrong decision, it isn't wrong because the majority's opinion is what matters.
I agree with him. If 57% of the US is made of stupid people and they vote stupidly, at least it is representative. If the majority of the US is making a wrong decision, it isn't wrong because the majority's opinion is what matters.
I kept out of this discussion as long as I could, but I just can't agree with your last words. The fact that a system works is good for the rulers, but not necessarily for the ruled ones.
Having to choose between two bad choices ensures a transfer of power but it doesn't ensure a representativeness for the people.
I lived 11 years in argentina and saw many elections: it was always the same corrupt group of rulers playing the musical chair game (you run around the chairs while the music is playing and you have to sit when it stops). It didn't make any difference who you were going to vote. Both were not desirable.
People slowly started to vote blank, so the rulers changed the law: now blank votes are given to the winning party.
This lack of choice reminds me a famous survey about a old train station. People had to answer this:
[ ] The renovation of the train station is completely unnecessary
[ ] The renovation of the train station is utterlly urgent
Can you guess that the outcome of the survey was not representative at all?
Having to choose between two bad choices ensures a transfer of power but it doesn't ensure a representativeness for the people.
I lived 11 years in argentina and saw many elections: it was always the same corrupt group of rulers playing the musical chair game (you run around the chairs while the music is playing and you have to sit when it stops). It didn't make any difference who you were going to vote. Both were not desirable.
People slowly started to vote blank, so the rulers changed the law: now blank votes are given to the winning party.
This lack of choice reminds me a famous survey about a old train station. People had to answer this:
[ ] The renovation of the train station is completely unnecessary
[ ] The renovation of the train station is utterlly urgent
Can you guess that the outcome of the survey was not representative at all?
Last edited by Zyx on Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Gambit37
- Should eat more pies
- Posts: 13720
- Joined: Wed May 31, 2000 1:57 pm
- Location: Location, Location
- Contact:
I have to agree with Zyx. Your argument, purple1, is naive and baseless. As I said above, "I feel sorry for the people of America who basically have no real choices". While Kerry vs. Bush is nowhere near as corrupt as perhaps the Argentinian elections Zyx speaks of, it never was a real choice at all.If the majority of the US is making a wrong decision, it isn't wrong because the majority's opinion is what matters.
- cowsmanaut
- Moo Master
- Posts: 4378
- Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:53 am
- Location: canada
I don't know.. as long as bush doesn't seek that "clarity" of the russians being the enemy deal he was spouting off about.. or run off and try to attack someone else, then it might turn out ok.
Then again.. he's still childish, irresponsible, and no all that bright.
Bio's for each member for each party should be given along with goals they want to see get done for the country. Then on the ballot you tick next to the name of the person you want to run the country. Certainly gives choice and it's not a matter of wait your turn.
Or at the very least.. promises should be made (as they often seem to be) to the people with regards to what they will do for their country.. and if they don't do that.. they should be tossed out and charged criminally. Because as far as I know.. Conning people out of their money, goods, etc is illigeal. Why not the whole country?
moo
Then again.. he's still childish, irresponsible, and no all that bright.
Bio's for each member for each party should be given along with goals they want to see get done for the country. Then on the ballot you tick next to the name of the person you want to run the country. Certainly gives choice and it's not a matter of wait your turn.
Or at the very least.. promises should be made (as they often seem to be) to the people with regards to what they will do for their country.. and if they don't do that.. they should be tossed out and charged criminally. Because as far as I know.. Conning people out of their money, goods, etc is illigeal. Why not the whole country?
moo
- Paul Stevens
- CSBwin Guru
- Posts: 4319
- Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 6:00 pm
- Location: Madison, Wisconsin, USA
It is so confusing. All these synonyms for the same thing:
Republican Democrat
Stupid smart
Right Left
Dishonest Honest
Warmonger Peacelover
Conservative Liberal
Religious Secular
Ignorant Informed
Greedy Sharing
Hating Loving
Introvert Extrovert
Wasting Saving
Unbending Flexible
Bad Good
Careless Careful
etc etc.
And, unlike most physical phenomena that involve millions of
samples, none of these words describes anything that fits a
bell-shaped curve. Every one of 120 million voters falls into
one of two spikes at opposite ends of the spectrum. Wierd.
Republican Democrat
Stupid smart
Right Left
Dishonest Honest
Warmonger Peacelover
Conservative Liberal
Religious Secular
Ignorant Informed
Greedy Sharing
Hating Loving
Introvert Extrovert
Wasting Saving
Unbending Flexible
Bad Good
Careless Careful
etc etc.
And, unlike most physical phenomena that involve millions of
samples, none of these words describes anything that fits a
bell-shaped curve. Every one of 120 million voters falls into
one of two spikes at opposite ends of the spectrum. Wierd.