This is a static copy of In the Rose Garden, which existed as the center of the western Utena fandom for years. Enjoy. :)

#1 | Back to Top09-15-2010 02:24:57 PM

satyreyes
no, definitely no cons
From: New Orleans, Louisiana
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 10328
Website

Clusterf**k to the Congress: 2010

It's Election Time!

Primary season is finally just about over in the United States!  Pretty much all the states now know who's going to be on the ballot in November; now we have two months to decide which name to check off on the ballot.  In the tradition of the thread I did for the 2008 election, it's time for a 2010 election FAQ!

Who are we electing, anyway?  It depends where you live!  At a minimum, you'll be electing a U.S. Representative from your district -- one of the 435 who sit in the House of Representatives in Washington.  Those suckers are elected every two years.  Most of the states are also having a Senate election and/or an election for governor this year, though a few, like Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, and Virginia, have neither.  Vote-smart.org is a good place to go if you don't know what races there are in your home state, or who's running for what.  (Or you can start with this Wikipedia page and browse from there; whatever you prefer!)

Is this going to be super-complicated like the presidential election?  Nope!  Unlike the messy presidential election, elections for Congress and for governorships are pretty simple: whoever gets the most votes wins.  The only tricky part is the primaries, but we're all done with those!  All you have to do is decide which of the candidates you like best for each office.

Is it important who gets elected in 2010?  Yeah, pretty much.  The presidential election isn't till 2012, but Congress is just as important as the presidency; the president can't pass laws by himself, after all!  This year we're electing the entire House of Representatives, as well as 36 of the 100 senators, so this is a chance to change the direction of the government a lot.  If you're tired of Republicans obstructing progress, or tired of Democrats spending money out their asses, or just unhappy with your own district's representatives, here's where you get to do something about it!  There are also 36 governorships on the line, as well as almost all the state legislatures, and these elections are more important than usual: in most states, the governor and legislature play roles in redistricting after the Census, which was held earlier this year.  In general, politicians will split up the state into districts that will get more politicians of their own party elected to the state and national Congress.  No one thinks this is fair, but everybody does it, so if you have a strong partisan preference, you might want to help make sure the cheaters in statewide office are your cheaters!  Oh, and issues and stuff.

Who's going to win the elections?  Um, it depends on local factors, nationwide trends, the weather...

No, seriously, who's going to win the elections?  Okay, okay: the Republicans.  The nationwide mood is pretty unfavorable for Democrats right now for a wide variety of reasons.  One way to explain it is that the president is a Democrat, the House and Senate both have Democratic majorities, and yet unemployment is still stubbornly hovering around 9.6%.  The current economic problems are probably not primarily the Democrats' fault -- though their massive deficit spending, another reason they're unpopular, might create problems down the road -- but there's a tendency to blame whatever party's in office for whatever angst we're currently experiencing.  Some of the specific things the Democrats have used their control of government to accomplish, like the health care bill, the stimulus packages, and financial reform, are also unpopular with wide segments of the public; this is pretty much what the Tea Party arose in reaction against.

So how good is it for the Republicans?  Pretty good.  Seems like Republicans are eager for a chance to stick it to the Democrats, while Democrats aren't that energized about the election.  It's hard to know in advance, but FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver is projecting about a two-in-three chance that the Republicans will take control of the House of Representatives, and a smaller chance, about 25%, that the Senate will also change hands.  Even if the Democrats hang on to both houses, their majority will be severely reduced -- possibly the worst scenario for Democrats, since the voters will still see a Democrat-controlled government, yet they won't actually be able to get anything done.  That's if current trends continue.  If Israel and Palestine somehow reach an epochal peace accord, or if October is a fantastic month for the economy, maybe Republican prospects will dim -- but of course the reverse is also true.

What is the Tea Party?  Primarily, they're a large group of citizens who are very angry at Barack Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress.  In general, Tea Partiers have economic and social views that are more conservative than those of the mainstream Republican Party.  As a rule, they are not notably well-informed -- there are a lot of Tea Partiers who think Obama is a Muslim, a Communist, and/or a Kenyan -- but their leaders are often charismatic and down-home individuals who know how to leverage all that outrage to their cause.  Sarah Palin is one of their standard-bearers.  In spite of the name, the Tea Party is not a political party, but a political movement.  Most Tea Partiers are Republican voters, although Tea Partiers and mainstream Republicans sometimes come into conflict.  Conventional wisdom is that mainstream Republicans will be more electable in November, but Tea Partiers have been better at winning primaries.

What's your bias?  I strongly dislike the Tea Party, but I don't have a clear opinion on whether the Democrats deserve to lose badly in November.  I feel pretty ambivalent about the reforms Congress has passed, and I wouldn't mind forcing the Democrats to work on bipartisan issues instead of the party-line agenda; on the other hand, Republicans lately have been so obstructionist that I'm not sure there are any bipartisan issues left.  Maybe a divided Congress would force both sides to be more moderate.  I almost always prefer Democrats to Republicans on criminal and civil rights, but no one seems to want to actually do anything about those issues lately, so I'm not sure that's a relevant election issue.  I have some kneejerk Democratic bias left over from 2008, but I still don't know how I'm going to vote in my own state's races.

What's this thread for?  Same thing as last time!  Share your thoughts about the election, for good or for ill; discussion, questions, funny campaign ads, and so on all go here.  What's going on in your state?  Who's running, and what do you think of them?  As before, I don't want an ugly or confrontational tone in here, but you can be cynical as long as you're thoughtfully cynical.

And if I can explain the parallels between this election and the Apocalypse Arc?  Then Saionji will fap for you!

Onward!  emot-biggrin

Offline

 

#2 | Back to Top09-15-2010 04:59:33 PM

Malacoda
Sunlit Gardener (Finale)
Registered: 07-26-2009
Posts: 180

Re: Clusterf**k to the Congress: 2010

While I will never be a politician, I love reading about politics, so I'm already in love with this thread. emot-biggrin

But first, I have a question. Could someone help me finds some good, solid facts on Meg Whitman? All I currently know is she's a former CEO of Ebay and I'm sick of her flooding my radio and TV with anti-Jerry Brown ads.

Offline

 

#3 | Back to Top09-15-2010 05:38:43 PM

Giovanna
Ends of the Fandom
From: Edmonton, AB
Registered: 10-12-2006
Posts: 8797
Website

Re: Clusterf**k to the Congress: 2010

Is Alan Grayson winning the polls for District 8 in Florida? I will be very sadpants if he disappears, he's one of the few Democrat trolls in the government.

satyreyes wrote:

And if I can explain the parallels between this election and the Apocalypse Arc?  Then Saionji will fap for you!

Student Council President Obama Kiryuu, faced with frequent allegations concerning his origin (is he from France? is he even his parents' son??), must battle for his party's position of power against the rising tide of The Curry Party (no Republican affiliation). Though he passed a historic health care bill, meant to provide assistance to all those impacted by pregnancy, the clap, or syphilis after sleeping with him, Republicans destroyed the value of the bill before passage, and it now does not cover pregnancy, the clap, or men. The President is held largely at fault for this.

RNC Chairman Akio Steele vacations in the Pacific, driving his jet in circles above glittering island jewels that have absolutely no bearing on the elections--lest he say something that bolsters the Democrat's chances, like 'We were wrong and this hooker's teeth are sharp.'

MEANWHILE, RNC Chairman Akio Steele's alter-ego, Ends of the Glenn Beck, holds a rally in Washington, DC, attended by all his minions of substance, by which of course we mean 'fatness' and 'eagerness to vote for idiots'. He swears The One True Dios speaks to him directly through The Lincoln Memorial and says that if Hitler is allowed to Nazi the election, everyone is Goering to Auschwitz, just like in the Mayan calendar. The event is attended by ten trillion voters, and five human beings.

Secretary of State Kyouichi Clinton, still reeling from her humiliating defeat to Obama Kiryuu in everything ever, repeatedly smacks Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas upside their heads, but they just won't seem to see sense. She will attempt a more reasoned approach next month, but will probably just get frustrated and smack them again.

Federal Reserve Chairman Miki Bernanke is completely ineffectual.

Despite her comparative position of power and 'talent', both of which tend to be spent on fighting pointless battles, House Speaker Nancy Arisugawa continues to be way less popular and cool than Nanami Palin. Her wardrobe is also cheaper.

....what do I win, again?


Akio, you have nice turns of phrase, but your points aren't clear and you have no textual support. I can't give this a passing grade.
~ Professor Arisa Konno, Eng 1001 (Freshman Literature and Composition)

Offline

 

#4 | Back to Top09-15-2010 06:51:32 PM

Chrome Homura
Poor Saionji :(
From: Oregon, USA
Registered: 06-07-2010
Posts: 518

Re: Clusterf**k to the Congress: 2010

Words fail to describe the win that is your post, Gios.

Although I believe this was mentioned in the prompt:

etc-saiowank


I am no longer here. If you wish to find me, my discord username is Heroic_Spirit_Gomikubi.

Offline

 

#5 | Back to Top09-15-2010 06:57:47 PM

Celaenoe
Miki Molester
From: Columbus, OH/Covington, KY
Registered: 09-09-2010
Posts: 32
Website

Re: Clusterf**k to the Congress: 2010

Giovanna wrote:

MEANWHILE, RNC Chairman Akio Steele's alter-ego, Ends of the Glenn Beck, holds a rally in Washington, DC, attended by all his minions of substance, by which of course we mean 'fatness' and 'eagerness to vote for idiots'. He swears The One True Dios speaks to him directly through The Lincoln Memorial and says that if Hitler is allowed to Nazi the election, everyone is Goering to Auschwitz, just like in the Mayan calendar. The event is attended by ten trillion voters, and five human beings.

emot-rofl
Ends of the Glenn Beck. Oh god I can't stop laughing. I don't know why its so funny.

Offline

 

#6 | Back to Top09-15-2010 07:07:46 PM

satyreyes
no, definitely no cons
From: New Orleans, Louisiana
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 10328
Website

Re: Clusterf**k to the Congress: 2010

Giovanna wrote:

The definitive essay on SKUmocracy

Ends of the Glenn Beck.  Oh God, it's so true.  etc-saiowanketc-saiowanketc-saiowank

Giovanna wrote:

Is Alan Grayson winning the polls for District 8 in Florida? I will be very sadpants if he disappears, he's one of the few Democrat trolls in the government.

That race is as tight as Utena's pants.  Alan Grayson, for those who don't know, is the freshman Florida representative who stood up in the House and said that the Republican health care plan is to not get sick.  He's being challenged this year by none other than Daniel Webster, who apparently returned from the grave specifically to defeat oh balls it's a different Daniel Webster, now I have to get rid of this boner.  I can't dig up any polling at all on this race -- House races are often not polled much, since they're of narrower interest than Senate races.  Grayson, as an incumbent, is outraising Webster by more than 10:1, but FiveThirtyEight still puts Webster at 59% to beat Grayson.

Malacoda wrote:

Could someone help me finds some good, solid facts on Meg Whitman?

What kind of facts?  Her issue positions?  That's a little tricky, since she's never held elected office before.  Her campaign site is very tightly focused on the economy, which makes sense, since that's a weak issue for Democrats this cycle and Whitman is known for her business experience.  Very much to her credit, she actually puts seven-to-eight-page outlines of her plans for job creation and spending reduction on her website; you should read them if you want to know what she supports.  (Of course, as with any politician, it's anyone's guess what she'll actually do once elected.)  Her stances on social issues are much more abbreviated; she is hawkish on crime and drugs (but opposes gun control), hard on illegal immigration (she wants to conduct workplace inspections "modeled after drug seizure raids" and sue the federal government for not paying for the imprisonment of illegals), and strong on alternative energy sources (wind and solar, with an option on nuclear).

If you mean "facts on Meg Whitman" like "the dirt on Meg Whitman," I don't know any more than you can find out by Googling her.  Unlike Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard executive (and current Cali Senate nominee) to whom Whitman is often compared, Whitman did not leave her company in disgrace; as far as I know she ran eBay pretty well, and I don't know of any major scandals or controversies she's involved in.  If I were a Californian, I'd definitely have some homework to do!

ETA: I found an LA Times op-ed if you want a fact-check on some of those attack ads you were complaining about!

Last edited by satyreyes (09-15-2010 07:20:07 PM)

Offline

 

#7 | Back to Top09-15-2010 08:44:27 PM

Malacoda
Sunlit Gardener (Finale)
Registered: 07-26-2009
Posts: 180

Re: Clusterf**k to the Congress: 2010

Giovanna wrote:

SKU politics

emot-rofl

satyreyes wrote:

Meg Whitman information

I guess her own campaign site is the best I can do. If she actually had a record of political actions it would be so much easier to really know where she stands. Of course, if she had such a record, Jerry Brown would be using it to his advantage (just like how Whitman is using Brown's track record to her advantage).

Oh Fiorina. If my dad's (an HP employee) complaints about her are even half-true, I wouldn't vote for her. (Well, I'd have to be an eligible voter first, my the sentiment still stands.)

LA Times link was very helpful. Thanks emot-keke

Offline

 

#8 | Back to Top09-16-2010 01:30:07 AM

Yasha
Bitch Queen
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Registered: 10-15-2006
Posts: 6031
Website

Re: Clusterf**k to the Congress: 2010

US politics are a mystery to me, but Gio's post makes it all clear emot-rofl


Hat Mafia Member: Ratchedface
Je vais mourir pour l ' a e s t h e t i q u e
Internet Atrocity Tourist             -           MY POSTS             ARE WARSHIPS

Offline

 

#9 | Back to Top09-21-2010 01:42:41 PM

satyreyes
no, definitely no cons
From: New Orleans, Louisiana
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 10328
Website

Re: Clusterf**k to the Congress: 2010

I've been looking forward to voting in the Florida Senate race in November.  That race has been interesting all year as a result of the retirement of its previous holder, Republican Mel Martinez.  Allow me to synopsize.  Our candidates:


http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/satyreyes/fl-senate-pics.jpg


Three-way races are generally not common in American politics, but Florida's Senate race has been three-way for some time now.  Charlie Crist is the (reasonably popular) governor of Florida; he was elected as a moderate Republican.  He was planning to run for Senate as a Republican, but then the whole Tea Party deal came along.  Marco Rubio is a very conservative Republican, and when he announced he'd be running in the Republican primary, the Tea Party turned out to have a boner for him.  It rapidly became clear that Crist didn't stand a chance against Rubio in the primary, so Crist left the Republican Party to run as an independent in the general election.

Meanwhile, everyone knew who the Democratic nominee was going to be: Jeff Greene, a real estate tycoon from Palm Beach.  But to everyone's astonishment, underdog Kendrick Meek, a U.S. Representative from Miami, won the nomination on the strength of a strong grass-roots campaign combined with low turnout.  This owed partly to the fact that no one really liked Jeff Greene and everyone knew he didn't stand a chance in the general election.  Meek, by contrast, was a bit of an unknown; he'd be underfunded, since he doesn't have billions of his own money to toss around, but maybe he'd turn out to be electable.

Now, in the 2000 presidential election, Democrat Al Gore almost certainly lost the state of Florida because Green Party candidate Ralph Nader siphoned off votes running to Gore's left.  Based on that example, you might think that Meek would have a strong chance in this election; Rubio and Crist should split the Republican vote while all the Democrats vote for Meek, and that should be that.  As it turns out, there are several problems with this theory.

- In general, Republicans hate Charlie Crist.  This is understandable.  Crist and President Obama shared a widely publicized hug during a joint appearance in early 2009, when Crist announced his support for the stimulus plan the Senate had just passed.  Since then, Republicans have soured on Obama, and just about everyone has soured on the stimulus.  Because of this, and a few other conservative sins, Crist is not a very effective Republican spoiler.

- In general, independents and Democrats do not hate Charlie Crist.  This is also understandable.  Crist's issue positions have been exceptionally hard to pin down; Rubio's campaign site has a running feature, "Can't Trust Charlie," that (often correctly) tracks Crist's flip-flops on issues in advance of elections.  Crist has changed his mind about offshore drilling (from anti- to pro-), gay adoption (from anti- to maybe), and Don't Ask, Don't Tell (from pro- to maybe).  It's honestly hard to figure out if he's conservative, moderate, or just unprincipled, but a lot of people in the center and left seem to feel he's much better than the archconservative Rubio.

- In general, independents have not heard of Kendrick Meek.  The Rubio-Crist storyline has dominated the election season, and Meek seems to have been crowded out.  His four-term record in Congress has been thoroughly unexceptional; he has voted the Democratic party line on just about every issue.  (You can see his voting record here; it's nice to be able to see how our politicians have actually voted.)  This cycle, it's hard to get elected in a swing state like Florida as a party-line Democrat, and that's if people know who you are.

So voters at the moment seem to be falling into the following sets:
- Conservative Republicans, voting almost uniformly for Rubio.
- Liberal Democrats, mostly voting for Meek.
- Moderate Democrats who figure Meek can't get elected, splitting their vote between Meek and Crist.
- Moderate Republicans, splitting their vote between Rubio and Crist.
- Centrists and independents who don't know who Meek is or find him too liberal, splitting their vote between Rubio and Crist.

As a result, the polls have seemed to gravitate towards Rubio 40-Crist 30-Meek 20.  The race has felt less interesting lately because this pattern has become settled and it looks like Rubio is heading for a win.  What's more, I'm not in love with any of these candidates.  Rubio is a complete nonstarter with me; he's a huge social conservative, and I can't really bring myself to vote for anyone who thinks gay people should have fewer rights than I do.  But I don't like Crist or Meek either.  The more I learn about Crist, the more I think he's a political opportunist whose agenda is getting elected, and all his beliefs are negotiable if he can get elected by believing something else.  I don't want to vote for someone like that -- yet he's been a reasonably effective governor.  Meek has shown no particular spine.  He votes for every spending bill that crosses his desk.  The only weird vote he's cast from a partisan perspective is his aye vote for a 2003 Constitutional amendment banning the desecration of the flag, and that vote alone just about disqualifies him for me.  (He voted nay on the same amendment in 2006, though, which is just confusing.)  On the other hand, he's the only candidate who has consistently been in favor of gay rights.

So once again, I don't know who I'm voting for.  It's looking like my least favorite candidate is going to win no matter who I vote for, so I may end up voting for someone else entirely, or not voting at all.  (My usual rule is that I only vote for a candidate who I think should win; if there is no candidate like that, so be it.)  I hope these three will have a meaningful debate at some point.  Their only debate so far was on immigration, which is an issue where there's nothing new for anyone to say and there wasn't a lot of daylight between Crist and Meek.  I'd like one of these gentlemen to say something that convinces me they've got some courage -- on behalf of ideals I actually agree with -- and are worth voting for!

Offline

 

#10 | Back to Top09-21-2010 09:08:22 PM

haelsyx
Caretaker
From: sunlit state
Registered: 10-09-2009
Posts: 211
Website

Re: Clusterf**k to the Congress: 2010

There's been a huge thing about Meek at my school...ugh I don't know who I'll vote for because as usual they're all kind of screwed up. I'm glad Christ went against the whole basing teacher's pay on how their kids perform and etc. I thought that was some load of bullshit, aren't the teachers already mistreated enough? Plus now that Christ is running as an independent he's a little more desirable to me. 
Still, Meek seems to be more same-sex friendly which is something Florida desperately needs if you ask me. Plus more democrats!


Omg Gio, etc-love that was amazing.

Last edited by haelsyx (09-21-2010 09:11:19 PM)


{livejournal} {youtube}
Its an odd thing, but anyone who disappears is said to be in San Francisco-Oscar Wilde.
Anyone get the feeling finding Utena is going to be a lot like where in the world is Carmen San Diego?

Offline

 

#11 | Back to Top09-22-2010 06:39:09 AM

lieutenant tangerine
Miki Molester
Registered: 02-18-2010
Posts: 34

Re: Clusterf**k to the Congress: 2010

RNC Chairman Akio Steele's alter-ego, Ends of the Glenn Beck, holds a rally in Washington, DC

So I was kind of just skimming until I got to this, and sat there sipping my coffee for a moment feeling really afraid and confused.

Then I went back and, yanno, read things, but it was a scary six seconds or so.

Offline

 

#12 | Back to Top09-22-2010 06:34:00 PM

azurepalesky
Wakaba Wrangler
From: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Registered: 01-15-2007
Posts: 12

Re: Clusterf**k to the Congress: 2010

One reason I'm glad I've been out of the US this year is I get to miss all those smear campaigns on tv for elections! Although politics on the national level aren't much better. But I love the SKU politics!

I feel really conflicted, because I care a lot about what the government is trying to restrict people on doing (and also regarding evolution/creationism in classrooms), but at the same time it usually feels disheartening to open a newspaper and read about all these idiots (on both sides) who have power. And I vote (well, not this year since I'm away), but I still feel so powerless. Everyone is so stubborn and believes that they are right that they fail to look at the constitution or to really listen to one another. Or at least, that's what it seems like to me.

Now I'm in a country where it is mandatory to vote, and I wonder if it's better to force everyone to vote, even if they are not informed, or if it is better to just let those who wish vote.

Offline

 

#13 | Back to Top09-23-2010 12:03:56 AM

Giovanna
Ends of the Fandom
From: Edmonton, AB
Registered: 10-12-2006
Posts: 8797
Website

Re: Clusterf**k to the Congress: 2010

satyreyes wrote:

Clusterfuck in Florida

I don't understand how there can be so many colleges in Florida and so many gay people in Florida and..

Oh wait, nevermind. emot-rolleyes

This kinda relates to what you're talking about azure--I'm not sure that forced voting is exactly better, though I do feel that voting in a democratic country should be viewed as a duty, not a right. But I do think that if people were required to vote, there'd be a decent shift to the left in our country. A lot of the notorious non-voters in this country are people who would likely vote left. Namely, the youth vote Stewart's always beaking at for being lazy. Would they be more informed voters than the guy in Montana terrified that OBAMA GUN TAKE MAH GUNS? Probably not. They're going to vote the buzz issues. You one of the 508734857368754 bazillion 'bisexuals' on college campuses? You're gonna vote left. You hate war because your favorite musician does? You're going to vote left.

The problem here is twofold. One, not enough people vote. The decisions in this country are made on behalf of a staggeringly low percentage of the population that bothers to vote at all, AND, frankly, they're not informed. Forced voting would give us a more accurate portrait of the outlook of people in the country, which I guess is the point, but it wouldn't necessarily improve the overall IQ of our government, since forced voters aren't going to pay attention to the information.

The only cure I can see for this situation is forced electoral literacy. When you go to the booth, you have to read a summary of the voting record/opinions of each candidate before you vote, and you have to answer questions about the reading before you do so. Kinda of like CE credits for nurses. The problems here, obviously, are enormous. Like that the average person reads at the 7th or 8th grade reading level. Further, '21% to 23% of adult Americans were not "able to locate information in text", could not "make low-level inferences using printed materials", and were unable to "integrate easily identifiable pieces of information."' (This is an even bigger problem in health care, especially for nurses, who are expected to explain things to, say, elders, for whom 80% of prescription labels and care teaching comes across as gibbledigok.)

In theory, a functional democratic system requires an informed voter pool that represents the country at large. Not 'this season Republicans are mad and Democrats are bored, so one will vote and the other won't.' We don't have that, but I don't actually see how you could enforce that on such a large scale.

PS/unrelatedish. You new college students enjoy your tax credits and low Stafford loan rates. I got the Bush batch, which means MY STUDENT LOAN APR IS DOUBLE WHAT MY BROTHERS PAYING ON A FUCKING CAR LOAN. Fuck.


Akio, you have nice turns of phrase, but your points aren't clear and you have no textual support. I can't give this a passing grade.
~ Professor Arisa Konno, Eng 1001 (Freshman Literature and Composition)

Offline

 

#14 | Back to Top09-23-2010 01:09:37 AM

satyreyes
no, definitely no cons
From: New Orleans, Louisiana
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 10328
Website

Re: Clusterf**k to the Congress: 2010

Gio, I think it's an interesting coincidence that you think that either voting should be a duty so that the country would go to the left, or only smart people should vote so that the country would go to the left.  emot-wink

On the whole, I still think it's probably best that if you don't even care enough about an election to drag your ass two miles to the polls or even request an absentee ballot, it's probably best that we don't pay attention to your opinion.  But the importance of "energizedness" does seem like an unfortunate effect of that system.  Politicians do such incredibly stupid things to energize their base.  Perfectly rational people who happen to be Republicans will become immigrant-hating Bible thumpers in order to turn out their voters, removing facts from political discourse.  Perfectly rational people who happen to be Democrats will schedule premature votes on Don't Ask, Don't Tell in order to turn out their voters, potentially setting back gay rights for years when it backfires.  I think voting is important, but if you asked me to explain why, I'd have trouble.

"Why is voting important?"

"Because nothing changes if you don't vote."

"I voted, and nothing changed."

"Um... try again?"

Offline

 

#15 | Back to Top09-23-2010 01:57:15 AM

Giovanna
Ends of the Fandom
From: Edmonton, AB
Registered: 10-12-2006
Posts: 8797
Website

Re: Clusterf**k to the Congress: 2010

Oh if you got that impression, I should have been more clear! I don't think a smart voter base would necessarily lean left. A larger one, yes, because the democratic base isn't energized right now, but a smarter one may lean right too. There are a lot of theoretically right-wing stances I agree with...some would make me vote that way if I thought they'd be followed through on. But Republicans haven't campaigned or practiced those stances since like...ten decades ago, so I basically vote social issues, which have a slightly, slightly better chance of getting changed, IMO.

I'm not gonna lie, if some fruitcake said I WANT TO FUNNEL THE ENTIRE DEFENSE BUDGET INTO POPULATING THE MOON AND LANDING ON MARS, I'd vote for them. At this rate, the gays aren't going to get anywhere anyway. emot-frown

I feel the same way though. Why DO I vote? You know, I dunno. Because I feel like I earn whining rights that way. Wouldn't a 'fuck off these all suck' option on the ballot be interesting though? If you don't win a majority over 'none of the above', you don't get the office.

There'd be no government. emot-frown


Akio, you have nice turns of phrase, but your points aren't clear and you have no textual support. I can't give this a passing grade.
~ Professor Arisa Konno, Eng 1001 (Freshman Literature and Composition)

Offline

 

#16 | Back to Top09-23-2010 10:08:09 AM

satyreyes
no, definitely no cons
From: New Orleans, Louisiana
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 10328
Website

Re: Clusterf**k to the Congress: 2010

Giovanna wrote:

I feel the same way though. Why DO I vote? You know, I dunno. Because I feel like I earn whining rights that way. Wouldn't a 'fuck off these all suck' option on the ballot be interesting though? If you don't win a majority over 'none of the above', you don't get the office.

There'd be no government. emot-frown

Believe it or not, Nevada actually has a ballot slot for "none of the above."  It doesn't have any effect -- if None of the Above wins the election, the actual candidate with the most votes is the one who takes office -- but I imagine it must be nice to have the option.  According to Wikipedia, Greece, Spain, France, Ukraine, and Colombia all do the same thing, except in their case it actually matters.  Wikipedia elaborates that when None of the Above wins, "a variety of formal procedures may be invoked, including having the office remain vacant, having the office filled by appointment, re-opening nominations or holding another election (in a body operating under parliamentary procedure)."  I like your idea, personally.

Offline

 

#17 | Back to Top09-23-2010 10:54:37 AM

Asfalolh
Knight of Gates
From: Barcelona (Catalonia)
Registered: 10-23-2006
Posts: 2005

Re: Clusterf**k to the Congress: 2010

satyreyes wrote:

According to Wikipedia, Greece, Spain, France, Ukraine, and Colombia all do the same thing, except in their case it actually matters.

In the Spanish case, that's not quite accurate. There's always the option of blank voting* and nule voting**, which are the options for those who want to vote but don't like any candidate (and which usually amount to a 1% - 5% of the total), but there's not a real "none of the above" slot. I don't think it would get much use, though, since there is quite a number of different parties to choose from, plus people feel these options are useless. (For the record, Portuguese writer José Saramago has a novel, Seeing, which actually revolves around an election were the majority of voters cast blank ballots and government declares war to these voters; it's next on my reading list).

* Voting with an empty envelope. These votes get eventually added to the winning party.
** Putting an incorrectly marked paper into the envelope.

Satyreyes, thank you for this thread! As in 2008, I'm sure it's going to be fun to follow the Congress election through the IRG members' eyes.

Offline

 

#18 | Back to Top10-03-2010 03:52:49 PM

satyreyes
no, definitely no cons
From: New Orleans, Louisiana
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 10328
Website

Re: Clusterf**k to the Congress: 2010

That's too bad, Asfa.  I rather like the idea of a genuine option for "none of the above."  emot-smile  But I guess the diversity of candidates helps make sure that there's always someone you're able to vote for!  Do people usually know by Election Day which two or three candidates are the ones with a real chance to win?

I got my absentee ballot!  emot-dance  I still haven't decided on my vote for senator; I'm waiting to hear more debate.  I decided on my vote in the open-seat governors' race, though.  This was a painful decision.  The Republican candidate is Rick Scott, a former venture capitalist and manager of a set of hospitals best known for their involvement in massive Medicare fraud cases totaling hundreds of millions of dollars.  Nothing was ever pinned on Scott, but it looks to me like he either knew or should have known.  Now he wants to be governor.  And he's about tied in the polls, so he might end up winning.

The Democrats are fielding Alex Sink.  She's currently Florida's treasurer and CFO, a position she's executed pretty well in difficult times, and her issues are overall pretty okay.  I raised my eyebrows, though, at her stance on immigration, which is harsher than I'd like, and her opposition to gay marriage "for religious reasons;" not only is gay marriage one of the easiest moral issues of our time, but the separation of church and state is one of those things that's pretty non-negotiable for me.  She looks pretty clearly better than Scott, and less likely to commit public malfeasance, and damn does she need every vote she can get in this very tight race, but...

So I started visiting the third-party candidates' websites, consistent with my general rule that I vote for my first choice regardless of whether they have a snowball's chance in hell of winning or not.  Some of them -- Peter Allen, C.C. Reed -- either were insane themselves or thought I was.  Farid Khavari looked moderately sane but didn't tell me what he thought about civil liberties and social issues, which I care about more than his plan to create jeaghrbs.  Daniel Imperato was similarly economy-driven and also talked about God a lot; having been "honored by many God-fearing organizations" is not a selling point in my book.

And that left Michael E. Arth.  Arth is a disaffected Democrat running with no party affiliation; based on his comprehensive treatment of the issues, as well as the iconoclastic nature of his website -- which includes a musical number entitled "I Am the Very Model of a Pragmatic Humanitarian" -- he seems to have a rather different idea about how politics should work than the party establishments.  A more transparent idea.  He explains his positions with reference to logic, history, social science, and common sense.  He also happens to believe that gay marriage should be legal, drugs and prostitution should be legalized, regulated and taxed, and the death penalty should be ended.  Almost all his positions are good, and they are very clearly his positions, tested with an original and canny mind rather than focus groups and party rhetoric.  It takes either courage or desperation to put yourself out there on behalf of unpopular causes because you think you're in the right.  It's exactly the kind of behavior that the two-party system discourages, which in turn is exactly the reason I'm a registered independent in the first place.

So I'm voting for my first choice and praying that Alex Sink doesn't lose by one vote!  emot-biggrin

Offline

 

#19 | Back to Top10-03-2010 07:28:37 PM

Imaginary Bad Bug
Revolutionary
From: Connecticut, USA
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 2171
Website

Re: Clusterf**k to the Congress: 2010

This may be slightly off-topic, but it's still about politics on some level, so I'm going to propose it anyway. emot-wink

satyreyes wrote:

which in turn is exactly the reason I'm a registered independent in the first place.

This got me to thinking. I wonder if you were feeling up to it - with your adeptness at all things politics - if you'd care to explain the difference between Independent and Unaffiliated voters in the USA. Your statement above is what made me think of it.

Here in Connecticut, I don't think us voters can register as an "Independent" (though candidates for office can), and when I registered to vote six years ago, I did not choose a party. Thus, for Connecticut records, I am "Unaffiliated". This doesn't make me a "swing" voter or an "undecided" though, as I know exactly where I stand on social and financial issues, for the most part. It's not that I don't identify with one party a million times more than the other, but I choose not to register as a Democrat because of things like Joe Lieberman. emot-tongue It's a double-edged sword, though, since in my state we have closed primaries, and as such I am not allowed to vote in those since even though I vote Democratic, I am not a registered Democrat.

Neither you nor I have party affiliation, yet our voting registration is different. It's a subtle difference, but I wonder if you think it's worth explaining to our international contingent (and even anyone here in the USA who is perplexed by the state to state differences in voting registration).


http://lh5.ggpht.com/_HERdW38xV_c/S5xZ2QVrIwI/AAAAAAAAApg/uNpckSbLgUw/s800/utenaban.jpg

Offline

 

#20 | Back to Top10-03-2010 10:16:14 PM

satyreyes
no, definitely no cons
From: New Orleans, Louisiana
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 10328
Website

Re: Clusterf**k to the Congress: 2010

Imaginary Bad Bug wrote:

satyreyes wrote:

which in turn is exactly the reason I'm a registered independent in the first place.

This got me to thinking. I wonder if you were feeling up to it - with your adeptness at all things politics - if you'd care to explain the difference between Independent and Unaffiliated voters in the USA. Your statement above is what made me think of it.

The difference?  There's not much of one.  emot-smile  As far as I know, there's no state where there's a choice between being "unaffiliated" and being "independent."  It's probably most precise to use "unaffiliated" when you talk about how you're registered, and "independent" when you talk about how you vote.  Someone who hasn't registered with a party but has voted Republican in each of the past ten elections is unaffiliated, but a pollster might find it's a stretch to classify her as an independent voter.  The words are usually used synonymously, though, and I wouldn't want to read too much into the difference when a person chooses one word instead of the other.

And of course neither word is related to being a member of America's Independent Party, or the Independence Party of America.  There are an awful lot of minor parties.  In Florida you can register with any of sixty-nine political parties, including the American Billionaires Party, the Real Food Party, the Surfers Party, or the Faith and Patience Party (charmingly abbreviated FAP on the ballot).  But I digress. emot-smile

Offline

 

#21 | Back to Top10-04-2010 06:06:58 AM

Giovanna
Ends of the Fandom
From: Edmonton, AB
Registered: 10-12-2006
Posts: 8797
Website

Re: Clusterf**k to the Congress: 2010

I switched from Independent to Democrat a couple years ago, only because Florida doesn't have open primaries. Functionally, I'm independent. And I would rather vote Tea Party than for a Democrat that's anti-gay marriage.

That said, I'm a bit more conniving a voter than satyr. emot-wink I will usually vote the lesser of the most likely evils rather than the candidate I truly like. The problem I'm having here is Alex Sink is basically a Republican with a D after her name. Even if she's elected, she's not going to contribute to Democratic cohesiveness or a movement to improve Democratic control over the political process. She'll just be another 'Democrat', and another good reason they should get things done, but don't. At least if a Republican wins, no one can say the Democrats should have had one more vote than they did. They're not going to have one in Sink on any of the important issues, anyway.

And really, I'd be shocked out of my skin if she wins anyway. So maybe I'll just vote my heart, too. I like a lot of what Arth has to say, though I disagree about immigration. Frankly, we need more young, working age people putting money into the system. Overpopulation isn't our problem right now, the distribution is. We have too many old people for the young people whose money will support them into the next few decades.

I'm moving to Canada by marriage. FAGGAYHOMOSEXUALOMG marriage. I think once my status is approved, I'm going to send someone, somewhere, a nice little letter saying 'Hay you know how you folks just LOVE nurses? Well, lost one. Work on that.' Gay marriage/issues has always felt to me like something that should pretty much resolve itself by the time I'm 30. That's looking increasingly unlikely and frankly? That terrifies me. I'm starting to wonder if I'll ever want to move back to the US. Immigration is a difficult choice to make, it's a raging pain in the butt and frankly, large chunks of any given population can't do it--it's expensive, and you can't just move somewhere because you like it better. I know this is a horrible idea, but I wonder what would happen if all borders opened for a month based on overall idealogical compatibility. The US would be left a rotting festering mess of completely apeshit conservative nutjobs, and half of this forum would move to Canada or pretty much any random European country. Every country has its problems, and socialism isn't always the answer, but seriously. Gay marriage? That's a question in our society. Even abortion I can understand seeing the need for careful and informed debate about...but being anti-gay marriage is like saying 'I'm not a fan of running water.' Sure, you can say that, but you sound like a barbarian.


Akio, you have nice turns of phrase, but your points aren't clear and you have no textual support. I can't give this a passing grade.
~ Professor Arisa Konno, Eng 1001 (Freshman Literature and Composition)

Offline

 

#22 | Back to Top10-04-2010 11:48:51 AM

satyreyes
no, definitely no cons
From: New Orleans, Louisiana
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 10328
Website

Re: Clusterf**k to the Congress: 2010

Giovanna wrote:

And really, I'd be shocked out of my skin if she wins anyway. So maybe I'll just vote my heart, too. I like a lot of what Arth has to say, though I disagree about immigration. Frankly, we need more young, working age people putting money into the system. Overpopulation isn't our problem right now, the distribution is. We have too many old people for the young people whose money will support them into the next few decades.

I agree.  But immigration isn't an open-and-shut issue for me like gay marriage, and while overpopulation seems like a strange thing to be worried about, it doesn't kill my respect for Arth because at least it represents original thinking that could one day be a legitimate point.  It would be better if he were correct, but given the paucity of politicians who agree with me about everything, I'll settle for "authentic and not completely crazy."

. . . but seriously. Gay marriage? That's a question in our society. Even abortion I can understand seeing the need for careful and informed debate about...but being anti-gay marriage is like saying 'I'm not a fan of running water.' Sure, you can say that, but you sound like a barbarian.

I am still waiting to hear a reasoned explanation of why gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married.  I don't hold too many political beliefs very strongly, because I'm conscious that there are two sides to the argument, that there are downsides to everything, and that I am probably not right about everything I believe or suspect.  But gay marriage?  Still waiting to hear about the downside.  Still waiting to hear a single good reason not to stand for it, something more profound than "I won't get elected" or "my holy book says it's wrong so it's wrong."  If you want to make the argument that government should not be involved with marriage at all, that's an argument I'm sympathetic towards, but singling out the gays?  Like I said, one of the easiest moral issues of our time.

I wonder what would happen if all borders opened for a month based on overall idealogical compatibility. The US would be left a rotting festering mess of completely apeshit conservative nutjobs, and half of this forum would move to Canada or pretty much any random European country.

I'm not sure where I'd end up.  emot-frown  England?  Massive government surveillance programs, cameras everywhere (and they don't allow gay marriage either).  Canada?  You can be put in jail for hate speech, and I don't trust the courts to decide what hate speech is.  Australia?  Illegal to speak against the government, plus, do you know how many poisonous snakes they have there?  I appreciate America.  We get a lot of shit wrong, but we get a lot of shit righter than anyone else ever has.  If I could move somewhere else without hassle, I might, but I'm not sure.

Offline

 

#23 | Back to Top10-04-2010 12:30:15 PM

Yasha
Bitch Queen
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Registered: 10-15-2006
Posts: 6031
Website

Re: Clusterf**k to the Congress: 2010

satyreyes wrote:

Canada?  You can be put in jail for hate speech, and I don't trust the courts to decide what hate speech is.

Well... that could be a problem if you were thinking about seriously hating on someone, but I can't think of any time I've ever actually worried about it. I just looked it up and it doesn't seem like a line anyone but an idiot would cross anyway-- it's in reference to wide dissemination of discriminatory messages based on race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc., and while I don't trust the courts much either, its pretty clear that unless you're building white power websites or you happen to be Ann Coulter, you're probably not gonna run into it.

More worrying is are the instances of people with viewpoints counter to Canada's official actions regarding Afghanistan being barred from entering the country. Those, however, don't fall under hate speech; they fall under national security, apparently. emot-rolleyes Whatever, Canada.

To be honest, I barely notice my government most of the time. Ever heard the parable of King Log and King Stork? Yeah, Canada has King Log. It's pretty okay.


Hat Mafia Member: Ratchedface
Je vais mourir pour l ' a e s t h e t i q u e
Internet Atrocity Tourist             -           MY POSTS             ARE WARSHIPS

Offline

 

#24 | Back to Top10-04-2010 01:37:33 PM

satyreyes
no, definitely no cons
From: New Orleans, Louisiana
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 10328
Website

Re: Clusterf**k to the Congress: 2010

Yasha wrote:

satyreyes wrote:

Canada?  You can be put in jail for hate speech, and I don't trust the courts to decide what hate speech is.

Well... that could be a problem if you were thinking about seriously hating on someone, but I can't think of any time I've ever actually worried about it. I just looked it up and it doesn't seem like a line anyone but an idiot would cross anyway-- it's in reference to wide dissemination of discriminatory messages based on race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc., and while I don't trust the courts much either, its pretty clear that unless you're building white power websites or you happen to be Ann Coulter, you're probably not gonna run into it.

I'm not really worried so much for myself as I am for Ann Coulter.  This is going to sound crazy, but I actually think that Ann Coulter (and Glenn Beck, and Bill O'Reilly, and for that matter Michael Moore and Bill Maher) should be legally allowed to say just about whatever they please, as long as they stop short of slander and directly inciting lawlessness.  The reason I believe this is that I'm conscious that history has shown that speech considered hateful in its time, including speech I find personally distasteful, has turned out to contribute to the forward motion of the nation in unexpected and powerful ways.  Early in his career as a demagogue, Malcolm X was a black supremacist who called white people devils.  We could have locked him up, but we didn't, because that's illegal in this country.  He remained free -- and contributed to black empowerment during the civil rights era, and later moderated his stance to one that advocated human rights without excluding whites.  To me this is an especially dramatic vindication of America's faith that letting people speak freely -- even if their speech is hateful -- will eventually result in progress.  MLK said, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."  I would sum up America's national character with those words.

Other things I think should be legal: nonviolent Neo-Nazi marches through Jewish communities; KKK rallies that don't involve stringing anyone up; burning the flag, or the Bible, or the Koran, in a protest; depicting and satirizing the prophet Mohammed just to piss off Muslims; rallying in front of a courthouse with signs that say GOD HATES FAGS; rallying in front of the Church of Scientology with signs that say SCIENTOLOGY KILLS; and on and on.  Speech should not be banned merely because it's insensitive.  Justice William Brennan, writing for the majority in a Supreme Court case establishing that it's legal to burn the flag, wrote:

We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one's own, no better way to counter a flag burner's message than by saluting the flag that burns, no surer means of preserving the dignity even of the flag that burned than by - as one witness here did - according its remains a respectful burial. We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.

So it is with all speech.  And that's my rant for the day.  etc-love

Offline

 

#25 | Back to Top10-04-2010 03:34:45 PM

Yasha
Bitch Queen
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Registered: 10-15-2006
Posts: 6031
Website

Re: Clusterf**k to the Congress: 2010

satyreyes wrote:

Free speech

Point taken, and to be honest, I agree on most counts-- but I don't want to derail this into an argument over a law I do fundamentally disagree with. My point was more that the law in question shouldn't keep you from thinking that Canada is a great place to live; every country has its issues, and comparatively speaking, Canada seems to have far less than the states. We're even decriminalizing prostitution (something I've felt strongly about for years). Hell, if this gets tied up in appeals, I might even start voting. emot-dance


Hat Mafia Member: Ratchedface
Je vais mourir pour l ' a e s t h e t i q u e
Internet Atrocity Tourist             -           MY POSTS             ARE WARSHIPS

Offline

 

Board footer

Powered by PunBB 1.2.23
© Copyright 2002–2008 PunBB
Forum styled and maintained by Giovanna and Yasha
Return to Empty Movement