I’M SO TIRED oF F*CKING PARTISANsh*t

[JimmyD]

OMFG!
We is it that our country's political system is ran in a manner that requires you to picke a side, and simply stay with that side?  Why are we not the revolutionary free thinkers that we used to be?  Why do so many people just vote party line, instead of considering what is RIGHT!
It seems to me that it is so often, you're for Bush, or your democrat, I remember someone posting about Fox news and other conservative mouthpieces discussing re electiing bush or something and they said "democrats rarely talk about who they're electing in 6 years...." WHICH IS A LIE!  I'm telling you, the democrate and republican parties are the exact same party, but with a different coat of paint.  They both pander to there base to get elected.
Perfect example, I live in KY, so when the flag burning hot issue came up (close to the beginings of election years.... hmmm....) one of out Senators, Mitch McConnel(sp?), a R, voted against banning it (duh, free speech) HE WAS ATTACKED for not voting with his party!  How dumb is that.  Instead of be allowed to decide for himself he was attacked.   Another weird situation in KY is that many people here are democrat.  But they aren't the bush hatting democrat that you are used to, they're southern democrats, which means they are very conservative, but they still vote democrat because that's what they're raised to do! I had family that said our great uncle would roll over in his grave if we didn't vote ticket deomcrat, meanwhile in a neighbor city, the democrat leader organized a bible reading on the courthouse steps!  WHOA!
And as for Bush, he hardly gets credit for some of the free thinking stuff he's done. He allowed stem cell research! WTF?! He's a R that allowed stem cell research and even funded!  How can you miss that? Sure he came up with a compromise, but he ALLOWED it. (though I disagree with it, not because of basic reasons, but because it's a waste of money.  Stem cell has lead to nothing, whereas adult-cell has had lots of breakthroughs and saved many lives. Why aren't we funding adult instead of embryo?)
Just to some up this random rant,  WTF are we so partisan? Why can't we just decided on our despite party lines? I would hope that being able to sit around a hookah with a diverse group of people, that we could possibly agree that nonpartisan is best, but that's just me.

[Sonthert]

OK, its one thing to complain about something, its something else to offer a solution...whats yours?

[JimmyD]

haha, good point
 
anarchy?

[Sonthert]

Curing the cold by killing the patient?

[kilgore trout]

  Given the historical perspective, the partisanship we see in America today could be worse.  Not to say that I don't think our elected officials could stand to use more common sense in their decisions, but consider if you will Senator Charles Sumner.  In 1856 he was nearly beaten to death by Congressman Preston Brooks on the floor of the United States Senate after Sumner had delivered a speech about slavery that included a personal attack on Brooks' cousin.  Look through the pages of American history and you will find much uglier instances of partisanship than you see today on CNN or Fox News.   There are several answers to your question on why we are so partisan.  I believe that the system of primaries in the electoral process inhibits a moderate candidate from making it to the general election.  In order to win a primary, the candidate must be either far left or right to appeal to the "party base" of extremists and fanatics, thus prohibiting a moderate candidate from being competitive.  Also, people who are very heavily entrenched in their beliefs will be more likely to be active in the political process than centrists.  Not to mention the extensive gerrymandering that occurs whenever one party gains control over their state legislature, once again creating either heavily republican or democrat districts.   Essentially, it is up to us, the citizens, to stop voting for people who would rather represent an extremist agenda than the people of their district.  Or to get involved in the electoral process by campaigning for more sensible candidates.  The people of America have forgotten how much power their vote can have.  Sure, you can't change the world, but stop whining about the problem and start fixing it.

[JimmyD]

I don't think that gerrymandering has as much of an effect as it did when that term was coined...
The idea that it is the primaries probably does have a little more weight in the situation, as only the strongest of the base of each party go out to vote in primaries.
I think that the main party has much more to do with the divisivness though.  Look at what has happened to Joe Lieberman (s[?)  He has moved more towards the center, and his previous allies have stabbed him in the back.  The same thing is starting to happen to Hilary.  She's began to make conservative statements ( I think a move for a wider group of voters) and her brethren have slowly moved away from her.  The same thing often happens to John McCain(sp.)

[kilgore trout]

Actually, gerrymandering is a very large problem.  The Supreme Court recently ruled that state legislatures can gerrymander as often as they want to protect their party as long as it is not detrimental to minorities.  Consider that in the last Congressional election (2004), only 5 incumbents lost to challengers.  That is a whopping 98% incumbency rate for the US House of Reps.  Also, 83% of these wins were by a landslide.  The lines for Congressional districts have been drawn in such a manner that there is little debate in races for most districts.  Most seats have become safe seats for one party or the other.  There is a complete lack of competition in these districts, enabling candidates who are either far right or far left to be elected quite easily.  Thus, there is a polarizing effect in the House.  Democracy is fundamentally based upon debate and competition, two things that gerrymandering has nearly eliminated entirely.  I would call this a big problem.

[Sonthert]

Take for instance a friend of mine who is a "California Republican". She is pro-gay marriage and pro-abortion rights. She insists that the republican party will "change", (yeah, who is she trying to convince? Like any party is gonna go out and change..) I think the opposite is true. The parties sit down and say "who will we nominate?" The guy who brings in the most money/votes. Is Schartzenegger pro gay-marriage? No...well that gets us this money, anti-union, money from over there, anti-abortion, more money. The John McCains and the Howard Deans of their parties who represent excellent statesmen, loyal public servants, but outside the mainstream of their parties will always be left twisting in the wind, since popular support for personalities (rather than parties) is at an all-time low. That prevents the democrats from going pro-NRA and the republicans from supporting abortion rights. Wasn't it Cleveland who was nominated and elected and everyone said "Who is this guy?" The guy that was on the right side of the fence on the most issues! Until we get rid of the electorial college system, the winner take all system of allocating those electoral college votes or we enact campaign reforms, or open up the system to third and fourth party candidates, we will continue to get these white-washed candiadtes. The good news, the megalomanic Jesse Jacksons and the Pat Robertsons who have slanted platforms and political axes to grind won't get elected either.

[Skimo]

tangiers i agree with you 100% but then again speaking up about it doesnt seem to be making progress. i mean theres alot wrong with the government, then again nobodys perfect, but that aside it seems like you have to get almost everybody speaking up to even get a slight chance of change in my opinion

[Claytron]

The real problem is the entire 'Party System'. It used to make sense historically. Getting information on some guy from x00 miles away by horse was a real difficult thing to do. So they created parties with the intention of being able to set up standards for which the party member would support. In this way they could support someone who best supported their beliefs. Great system for a time when distant communication was difficult and expensive. The party system still worked for quite a while as there were more than two parties and third parties actually had a chance if they represented a missing point of view held by enough people.With the advent of our modern mass media, getting information on candidates became very easy. Even more so with the advent of the internet. Also what you find is that politicians can be a member of a party and proceed to act completely contrary to their platform when in office. I guess that was always a risk, but it strikes me that they used to support their parties better.Now our only two viable parties are all the majority of people will vote for - and their viewpoint run the gammut of members in both parties. It's not bad to have a variety of view, but it causes a lot of problems both in actions and election decisionwise when all of these very contrasting view points are covered by two blanket parties that only have very loose ideas creating any sense of cohesion. What you end up with is people who resent members of their own party. For example, there are tons of staunch Republicans who absolutely hate Bush Jr. It's not that their opinion of someone isn't allowed to change, but often times the person they vote for doesn't represent them.The real problem is that Americans are politically lazy. They don't like to actually learn about candidates other than maybe watching the puppet show that is our presidential debates. And then they aren't decided who they like really, they're just rooting for their team like a sports match. I feel they don't make a shred of difference. George W. was the worst debater in his debates. He's just a terrible public speaker. How could someone watch him and say, 'Yeah, that guy should be president.' The point is they didn't care. They were gonna vote for their 'team' either way. It's just way easier to stick your dick in slot A or slot B than it is to actually do the work involved in something that is very very important.And don't even get me started on the conservative christian aspect of it. But at least they're voting.

[Sonthert]

By that same logic, the representative democracy system is out of date as well. When people were on horses, they couldn't, on a daily basis, ride to a county seat or state capital to vote. Our congress is made of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The HR is intended to be based on population. There are 463 members of the HR. Each state gets one off the top. The other 413 are allocated by the population of each state, so larger states, population-wise get more of a say. The Senate is the opposite, each state gets two senators, so that small states have just as much sway in the senate. Here's what I propose. Replace the House of Representatives with a computerized voting system. Its perfect, each state gets exactly the representation that their population of voting adults represents. It would be like a forum, people wopuld express opinions, offer new legislation and people would get drawn randomly every now and then, like jury duty, to go to a federal center and spend each day of a week or so researching things and voting on them. The senate would still exist of elected representatives and they would be a check valve to make sure somebody didn't squeak through a "Nuke Turkmenistan" bill. The president, too, of course.

[GuyWithTheGun]

Wanna hear my solution?A confederacy.I think America is trying to control too large an area with too complicated a goverment. What we do is go back to the way it was back in the days of the colonies, several independent governing bodies with sort of an "over-goverment", but instead of giving power to the "overseers", for lack of a better word, we give the majority of power to the confederated states, unions, whatever you want to call them.It's like getting millions of people in a room, and then telling them all that whatever the majority of them believe, the rest have to adopt as a religion. It's much better to just put everyone in separate rooms and make it as easy as possible to move between them, much like Europe is becoming.There was a group of Libertarians, I belive, that wanted to pack everything up, move to a different state, and basically vote that state out of America, thereby giving them control. But what about the people who lived there already? Wouldn't that disrupt their lives? Different regions have different ideas, different industries, different majorities and minorities. We can't encompass it all this broadly.For example, let's say I live in, oh, France. Disagreeing with French laws would only mean a short move, basically a "state" (and I use this as a measurement) away, to a place where I would be much more comfortable.Maybe it's just Hunter Thompson's books talking, but more power given to smaller goverments would just plain make more sense. If I didn't agree with the way my part of the Confederacy was doing things, I could just go somewhere else. Hell, even more than that, more governing power should be given to city/town/village level goverment than is now. They should have more say over taxes, and the majority of the tax dollars spent there should be used to benefit that immideate location. The "overseers" or federal goverment as it's now known would exist solely to regulate trade between unions and oversee a military force adequate to defend the nation, among other things. But the majority of their power would be gone, which means that one party or another could NOT have control over the entire country and it's laws. Federal influence would mean nothing on a state level.Honestly, how many people in Nevada do you think would give a rat's ass if they legalized marijuana? The only reason it's not legal is because the US Government puts partisan influence on that state not to legalize a damn thing. But when you've got 50 sides instead of just 2, things change a little.I dunno. It's a rough sketch of how I would fix things, and not exactly perfect, I'm sure, but for some reason I could see it working much better than the system we have now, where the entire country is run by a group of rich white snake with 2 heads, constantly at war with one another. The republican and democratic parties are puppets belonging to the same masters, if you ask me. Neither one has it right, and to tell the truth, nobody will until we stop spreading our federal goverment too thin and using it as an excuse to make conservative rich americans feel safer in their homes.Karl Marx had a point. There's going to be a point when the poor and destitute realize they outnumber the rich and powerful, and then a lot of blood is going to fly. The only question after that is what then?Can you tell I'm from the south?

[Claytron]

[quote name='GuyWithTheGun']There was a group of Libertarians, I belive, that wanted to pack everything up, move to a different state, and basically vote that state out of America, thereby giving them control. But what about the people who lived there already? Wouldn't that disrupt their lives? Different regions have different ideas, different industries, different majorities and minorities. We can't encompass it all this broadly.[/quote]That's the Free State project. It's still active. And you're incorrect about their intentions. They aren't trying to get it out of the US, they want to dominate the political system to enact libertarian policies. The state would still be part of the US, but would vote on measures to create a liberatian government. If you actually read the site, there has been quite a lot of thought put into it - so your extremely over simplifying their objectives.I too am from the South and believe in the confederacy, but I don't so much agree with your idea. America can't become a confederation of states because it would tear the country appart. It's one thing for a body of people to try to enact change - but to force each state into seperate confederacies, you end up with a pretty chaotic system at this point. It's not that it's impossible - I just don't see it working in today's political landscape. We'd plunge into a pretty brutal civil war because there are alot of states that would really hate each other and people would be uprooted in a pretty extreme way to escape the place they live because the new government is insane. You could say, "How is that different from the Free State Project?" In theory it's not that different - but the reality is that their policies aren't that drastic, just way more socialy liberal and politically conservative than any state is now. If you REALLY enacted a confederacy of states you'd end up with theocracy states that would make pretty miserable neighbors. It's not to say they don't have a right to do so - most certainly people do.The original confederacy - and this is where history was written by the winners - was not about slavery. It was about states rights. The North wanted to abolish slavery (yes slavery is one of the most despicable human acts), and the South was angry about this. Very angry. The federal government decided to override their individual rights as states and force them to give up some of their rights. The war wasn't just about the right to own slaves - but the very concept that the federal government was overpowering their local government. Especially in those days, it would be absurd to assume that the federal government had much of a notion about what was going or relevant to the lives of those in the southern states. Generally everything worked well but then the federal government overstepped their bounds and said - 'You're part of our country, you have to do this.' They we're understandably pissed over this whole deal and banded together to suceed from the union. When the original territories were formed each state retained the right to leave at any time if they so chose. That was part of the original provisions of the formation of the states. This made the North angry because the South was cotton country and a very very very large portion of Americas income. America would have been financially ruined if the southern states were actually able to suceed - which they had every right to do. So the North decided they would force the South not to suceed by buldozing their way to their capital and forcing them not to with military force. So they did. And they won - barely. Interestingly the English were on their way to aid the Confederacy at the time, which is thought would have changed the course of the war. The world would be a very very different place today if they had intereved. In the end, the southern states lost their rights to slaves, to suceed, and to have states rights override the federal decisionmaking bodies. That being said it has changed back in forth between state and federal priority since then - today it's a balance of the two. That's the history that isn't usually taught in gradeschool - unless you have a good teacher in the South. So understand - the confederate flag does not mean 'I like slavery.' It doesn't... well... that's half true. Some people do use it to mean that - their ignorant redneck hicks. I know plenty of them. But Nazi's use the swatstika and so do the Buddhists... same symbol - different meanings. Similar idea - the confederate flag represents states rights. That's why it has flown over southern capital buildings long after the civil war. Southerns still very much support states rights - read smaller federal government - not because southern governments hate minorities.History lesson over. Back to the topic at hand. The real problem is the world is explored - we're out of hospitable spaces for new ideas and new governments and we're all cramping. There's no room for new countries because no one wants to give up precious space without a fight. IMO, we need to focus on sea exploration and space exploration to enable the development of new living spaces. It was a very active dream up until the 70's and 80's - perhaps earlier but the advances we were making were still pretty dramatic at these points. Since then, most of America's ambitions have gone down the crapper. America has become stagnant with the idea of the American dream turning into something aweful. We've become a greedy fearmongering nation. America has the power to great things - and we're not doing a very good job in even bothering with it anymore.As silly as it sounds we could all have our own little bubbles in space and just leave each other the fuck alone. Our universe is so large and yet our worldview is so incredibly narrow desipite an awareness of the vastness and complexity of everything. We bicker and fight and die for things that may not matter. We, as a species, love to hate - we have to have adversaries to overcome - if only we could all unite and overcome our own limitations versus each other. The spirit is there I think - but I also think it won't happen unless we're threated by imminent doom - fiction uses that device alot - but I think it's a truth. An aversary of humanity and survival forces all men to join together reguardless of differences. If we survive we are all better for it as we have been forced to acknowledge one another as equals.Man is a marvelous creature but too enamoured with the idea of him to acknowledge his own flaws and to work towards bettering himself using his one unique trait among animals - the power to think - to use ones mind for complex tasks and thoughts.That said - we need more smaller countries. We need to not fuck with each other. There's alot of space out there - on this planet and beyond. America is a big place with big ideas. It's hard to rule such a diverse place and make everyone happy. I think America is TOO big as well. It would work better in smaller chunks - but I don't think today's America can handle that. All we need is the constitution, the bill of rights, and political leaders who understand and respect them. We need to modernize the election system and keep it up to date.To speak on Tangiers' thought of a system without a House. I don't think it would be the best system because people are lazy. That's not a good excuse, I know. It's really our biggest problem. But in many ways having the house makes a certain ammount of sense. If we were to have people voting directy on everything - not only would it be a giant crazy system to track - not everyone can or would vote on everything - even if they actually cared about it. In more fine tuned version of our current system - if you can elect someone who actually represents your views - then you can trust that person to be on top of making those decisions for you. They can be informed on the issues and make decisions as their job - even though most can't even review most of the stuff they vote on because it isn't realistic with the ammount of crap they jam together now adays. I think it's a good system - the problem is it's hard if not impossible to find a candidate that represents you even slightly sometimes. Sometimes there aren't any. The party system is at fault I feel. It facilitates the lazyness by allowing people to choose people blindly. How do I know if Steve or Susan would make a good Lt. Governor? Oh well Susan is a Democrat. I'll vote for her. But in reality Susan is more conservative than her conservative opponent. Wow. What a great system. Technology now adays does allow us to do the kind of thing Tangiers describes - direct representation. It could work - and even though I don't think it's the best solution, I'd be willing to try it because I think the country needs a change. I'm curious how many more questionable elections and power hungry political leaders this country can take. We clearly have a high shit tollerence level - but how high?That was a doozie, huh? Gonna have to save this one.

[Barnzy02]

Guywithagun, i could not agree with you more. it's what i've been saying for a long long time. if you look historically, no matter what, once a 'nation', 'kingdom', 'empire', whatever you wanna call it. whenever it spreads too far, and covers a wide area of land, there is gonna be problems. And in the end it's just gonna fall apart. To me the perfect example is the Roman Empire. They took over their known world, they ruled it all, and they did a decent job. they had great infrastructure, they did a decent job. But after it goes on for an extended period of time and they take over different areas. As generations go on, peoples opinions change and people arent as happy with the current situation. it's gotten to the point in america where if you speak out against the government its considered wrong, we are supposed to blindly follow a leader that has completely fucked our country over for the next 50 years. we're gonna have to spend that time tryin to fix everything Bush has done. I feel that it is time that America needs to just break apart, there are too many conflicting opinions and ideals and the system just isnt working anymore. Either that or i'm just gonna move somewhere else.

[Claytron]

[quote name='Barnzy02']I feel that it is time that America needs to just break apart, there are too many conflicting opinions and ideals and the system just isnt working anymore.  Either that or i'm just gonna move somewhere else.[/quote]Better pack your bags. The economies of both new countries would collapse - so it won't happen. Plus the 'blue areas' are broken up - so they would have a tough time of it. That and the civil war(s) involved would devistate the country at this point. America is what it is.I'll say it again - America needs to cling to it's founding principles - the only way out is through.

[Barnzy02]

[quote name='Claytron'] [quote name='Barnzy02']I feel that it is time that America needs to just break apart, there are too many conflicting opinions and ideals and the system just isnt working anymore.  Either that or i'm just gonna move somewhere else.[/quote]Better pack your bags. The economies of both new countries would collapse - so it won't happen. Plus the 'blue areas' are broken up - so they would have a tough time of it. That and the civil war(s) involved would devistate the country at this point. America is what it is.I'll say it again - America needs to cling to it's founding principles - the only way out is through.[/quote] i know it wouldn't work, it would be almost impossible, i realize that. but i figure at some point in time, its gonna come to either that, or the whole country will collapse.

[Claytron]

I don't think that's a guarantee at this point. I think the role of the media and the particular politicians in the game will play a big role in that. If we continue down the line of enforcing how 'different' the two dominant parties are - then yeah, I can see bad shit happening. No matter who our next president is - they need to set a new course and hopefully start hearings on the activities of the current administration. We need to patch up the ship.

[Sonthert]

Lots of great solutions, already been tried and failed. Rehashing an old idea that didn't work, doesn't make it any more plausible or better. You actually expect people to move if they don't like their confederacy? People whine and form unions when they don't like their job...imagine proposing to them they pack up their shirt and move from their house? Not really practical. We tried confederacies:1776-1791, 1861-1865 (roughly, I don't remember exact dates). The last one should be noteworthy. Its what happens when one or more states votes themselves out of the USA. Damn dumb idea. Back to the House of the People Idea. Yes, people are lazy...now. They have no incentive or governing desire to be anything else but. What if only 10% of the people voted, on average, on any one issue? Would that vote be more representative of the people? Probably. If it wasn't, people would learn quickly...become involved or the crazy people will be calling the shots. People have to give up the absurd notion that everybody should vote. The foundation of our system of governement, parliamentary procedures state that not voting is the right of everyone (members).Why is it that people are required to vote one way or another for two candidates they don't like or on a measure that they care nothing about and doesn't impact them? Not voting is incredibly important, actually. It tells us how well the governement is doing in representing the constituency. It tells us how departed from the mind of the people governement has become. Of course people couldn't vote on everything. Forums, like this, would pop up encouraging people to vote a certain way on a certain issue. People would find forums that had people who shared their general outlook and stay there. People would only vote on things that interested them or were important to them. We would need to pass several integral laws that would cover the situations.#1: Any elected representative or person in a place of public trust found to be knowingly disseminating false information to the American People or to Media sources shall be imprisoned for not less than 20 years for the first offense and not less than 30 years for a second offense. #2 Any elected official or governement employee found to be receiving gifts or financial incentives from any company or lobbyist shall be sentenced to, for the first offense...(same as #1)#3 Any individual found to be tampering with voting counts or committing some breach of security regarding information held by the House of The People shall be guilty of treason and shall be sentenced to not less than 40 years in prison. Back to the USA splitting up issue.What are the real problems in the USA, today? I think they can all be linked to the national debt (Which Washington said was a bad idea), a standing military and a Military Industrial Complex that ravenously prays for war (Which all the founding fathers warned against) or corrupt politicians who think they are close to Gods. The third category, is of course, endemic to politicians...nothing can be done about that.

[moosepotatoes]

oooo rednecks how fun....

[DCShisha]

I have 3 words--Instant Run-off Voting (IRV). This would give 3rd-party candidates a much better chance of making it in a primary. Also, the current electoral system (with 1 or 2 exceptions) forces states to go to one party or another without proportionally allocating the votes artifically enforces the 2 party system.