Decision 2016

[The_X_Marker]

If I don't want to vote for either candidate, I won't vote against either candidate either. I'll vote when I feel that there is someone who deserves it and someone who can put it to use. The third parties unfortunately are not going to win with the big two still around, so I see no reason to vote third party unless I can see that those parties would make a substantial impact in the electoral arena.

I agree that full on, large scale political apathy is calamitous, but my decision to not vote in this one election, rather than every election, is harming nobody.

[ollie]

Originally Posted by The_X_Marker

I agree that full on, large scale political apathy is calamitous, but my decision to not vote in this one election, rather than every election, is harming nobody.

What's going on down-ticket? Any close races? Any issues in the balance?

And if you want change towards minor parties having a voice, and there's a minor party you agree with even though you don't think they will win, then voting for them is infinitely better than not voting at all when it comes to how you can affect the landscape for 2020. There might even be "hard" benefits like getting on ballots and into televised debates rather in addition to "soft" ones like potentially more media coverage.

[Dysole]

I'm still trying to figure out what'll need to happen to reroute the system to make more than two parties viable. I know what needs to go (first past the post winner take all method of victory) but I'm uncertain how to remove that or to make something else more viable. To this extent, I see voting third party as akin to taking ibuprofen for cancer. Shrug.

~Dysole, big picture gal

[Tornado]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

No, at the worst, your indifference and that of others like you - or, perhaps, your cynicism and that of others like you - will be calamitous for our nation.

This. This exactly.

[Nukatha]

Originally Posted by Dysole

I'm still trying to figure out what'll need to happen to reroute the system to make more than two parties viable. I know what needs to go (first past the post winner take all method of victory) but I'm uncertain how to remove that or to make something else more viable. To this extent, I see voting third party as akin to taking ibuprofen for cancer. Shrug.

~Dysole, big picture gal

Pretty sure we'd need a Constitutional Amendment to change that, which, thankfully, Congress doesn't ever need to vote on, the States can do all that on their own.
Oh, and if I have cancer and I'm offered acupuncture, homeopathy, and ibuprofen, I'll take the ibuprofen every time.

[Dysole]

If I remember right, Congress still has to draft and vote on it. It has to be approved by most of the state legislatures though as well.

As for the analogy, I don't see Democrats and Republicans (the leadership) in that way. I see them as two mediocre health plans with pros and cons that are much more concerned with making a buck off of me than whether or not I recover but they still want my recovery because it's good PR.

~Dysole, who might be a bit cyncial on that front, but she finds neither party to be inherently broken; this whole election does feel like it's bringing out the dysfunctions in both parties though.

[Nukatha]

Originally Posted by Dysole

If I remember right, Congress still has to draft and vote on it. It has to be approved by most of the state legislatures though as well.

Not true.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Two thirds of the state legislatures (34) can propose an amendment, which then would need to be ratified by 3/4 of the states (38 ), which bypasses Congress.

[wriggz]

[QUOTE=Dysole;2105661]If I remember right, Congress still has to draft and vote on it. It has to be approved by most of the state legislatures though as well.

As for the analogy, I don't see Democrats and Republicans (the leadership) in that way. I see them as two mediocre health plans with pros and cons that are much more concerned with making a buck off of me than whether or not I recover but they still want my recovery because it's good PR.QUOTE]

And there is the Rub.

Business is about making money. No matter which way you cut it the point of a business is to get more money out than is put in for the profits of the Owner (shareholders).

Government SHOULD be different. The purpose of good government is the Protection and promotion of welfare of it's citizens (or happiness of it citizens). This includes facilitating the creation of Jobs, providing education, Ensuring basic necessities are available (like clean water and electricity), Protection from fire, crime, war, disease and prejudice.

How the government does these things is up for debate, but cost of letting "Business sort it out" has been paid repeatedly (see financial crashes, environmental destruction, and the wage gap for examples). When a politician goes into politics to make money something is wrong, in the same way you would hope that a doctor want to save lives first and foremost or a police officer wants to protect people, instead of just collecting a paycheck.

In a recent visit to a Native Reservation, Canada's current Prime Minster Justine Trudeau Promised to make sure clean water is available. I paraphrase: "It needs to be done, People will say it costs too much, It does not matter what it costs, it is the right thing to do". They have begun moving on the project, which is just the type of activity that government was created to do.


I don't know how government bodies can deal with anything, when people are starving. Shouldn't that end any discussion.


"I would like to propose that we re-negotiate the way taxes are..."
"People are starving, maybe we should focus on that first, eh?"

[Rich10]

Originally Posted by wriggz

Government SHOULD be different. The purpose of good government is the Protection and promotion of welfare of it's citizens (or happiness of it citizens). This includes facilitating the creation of Jobs, providing education, Ensuring basic necessities are available (like clean water and electricity), Protection from fire, crime, war, disease and prejudice.

How the government does these things is up for debate, but cost of letting "Business sort it out" has been paid repeatedly (see financial crashes, environmental destruction, and the wage gap for examples). When a politician goes into politics to make money something is wrong, in the same way you would hope that a doctor want to save lives first and foremost or a police officer wants to protect people, instead of just collecting a paycheck.

In a recent visit to a Native Reservation, Canada's current Prime Minster Justine Trudeau Promised to make sure clean water is available. I paraphrase: "It needs to be done, People will say it costs too much, It does not matter what it costs, it is the right thing to do". They have begun moving on the project, which is just the type of activity that government was created to do.

I agree that government should be involved in "facilitating the creation of Jobs, providing education, Ensuring basic necessities are available (like clean water and electricity), Protection from fire, crime, war, disease and prejudice." Yes, we should have clean water.


I'm not sure how to prevent financial crashes. I wouldn't want to be an oil field worker in Canada since the price of oil crashed. Outside of providing a safety net, what is the government supposed to do about the drop in the price of oil? Yes, you need regulations on businesses to prevent pollution and other similar negative events. But, if the regulations begin choking companies, you begin to hurt ""facilitating the creation of Jobs".

Originally Posted by wriggz

I don't know how government bodies can deal with anything, when people are starving. Shouldn't that end any discussion.


"I would like to propose that we re-negotiate the way taxes are..."
"People are starving, maybe we should focus on that first, eh?"

Are people starving in Canada? I would have thought that Canada's social safety net would make this unlikely.

[wriggz]

Starving is a bit hyperbolic but That poverty line is fairly crappy. Sometimes it seems we focus on the details aND forget the goal.

You are correct about regulatons to a point. Canada still largely regulates the bank and insurance industry so we didn't get hit so hard in 2008.

[Rich10]

Originally Posted by wriggz

Starving is a bit hyperbolic but That poverty line is fairly crappy. Sometimes it seems we focus on the details aND forget the goal.

You are correct about regulatons to a point. Canada still largely regulates the bank and insurance industry so we didn't get hit so hard in 2008.

The poverty line is crappy in the US as well. The hope is that people will not be satisfied with surviving at the poverty line and will attempt to raise themselves above it.

The Great Recession of 2008 was a very complex event and people on the right and left blame the other side. They both seem to have valid points.

[wriggz]

Originally Posted by Rich10

The poverty line is crappy in the US as well. The hope is that people will not be satisfied with surviving at the poverty line and will attempt to raise themselves above it.

My Son was born to a Insurance Professional and a Registered Nurse with university education. His parents are on track to own their own home, and will be able to afford him a full stomach, a computer, and a childhood where Skinned knees and cooties will hopefully be his biggest worries. He will also get lots of time with his parents to play and learn as neither work more than 35 hours a week. He will grow up with kids in generally the same economic situation. His local elementary school and high schools are clean and reasonability well staffed. Both his parents are qualified to help him with his homework. There are 4 Universities he can reach on public transit and multiple collages which his parents have set up a savings plan for and are not beyond his means due to scholarships bursaries and a reasonable student loan service. If either his parents lost their jobs it is unlikely they would be out of work for more than a month or two, and have savings enough to get them through rough patches.


Both my wife and myself were raised by single Mothers in "working" towns. My mother worked multiple jobs to make sure I was never hunger but I was lucky enough to have brains enough to avoid the seeder side of life (some of my friends were not so lucky). My wife is more impressive as her mother was on disability and there was no child support. She fought her way to where she is now, and again many of those she grew up didn't.


Few people "decide" that they are okay living at the poverty line. Both my wife and I lucked out to have brains enough (and maybe not be cool enough to get sucked in with the Cool bad kids) to get through those rough years. When you get to the other side and see the Morons that are successful because their lives were easy, you realize there are many at the bottom because that is where they were born.


My son has almost every advantage you would want. If he fails it is because of either REALLY, REALLY bad luck or because he is a Dumbass. The same cannot be said for most people growing up in poverty, who need to be lucky to succeed.