Can We All Agree That There Is Fundamentally Little Difference Between Republicans and Democrats?
Options
Plutarch
Members Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭✭✭
*spin-off thread*
At least when it comes the mainstream Republicans and Democrats, I can't honestly understand how anyone can say that there is a clear difference between the two. Especially in today's time. Yes, there is a few relatively sharp differences, if you can even call it that. But for the most part, it's two peas in a pod or same ? , different ? . And it's only logical that so many people see this and have been outspoken about it. And all of this is why it's so important to support non-mainstream Republicans and Democrats and/or third party politicians who aren't pandering demagogues and who are actually principled advocates for a genuinely better America. It's crazy how Obama gets a pass even though he's generally playing out Bush's third and fourth term and Romney's first term.
I can explain myself with paragraph after paragraph, but I sifted through some good YouTube videos that do a good job at explaining my stance:
Obamney 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXgJEd6grx8
Democrats are the New Republicans
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Jc4U4ugi_4
George Carlin, the GOAT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBrARSKQQs8
FuriousOne wrote: »There will always be two parties because most peoples ideology falls between helping others and helping yourself and Moral restriction or free expression. There there is the in between.
I agree and disagree. Generally, collectivism and individualism (and these are ideas that I think are much more accurate and fair than “helping others” and helping yourself”) are major oppositional factors in political philosophies. But there are so many other factors that complicate the American political party system of which I think you have oversimplified. Also, both Republicans and Democrats have been known to be for and against moral restriction and free expression at various times during this century.FuriousOne wrote: »Being human, even 20 parties will have corruption.
True. Humans are corrupt, so everything that they do will be corrupt. But corruption is not the biggest issue. The biggest issue is which political philosophies are “right” and which are “wrong.”FuriousOne wrote: »I can't see how you think the two parties are exactly the same when they differ greatly on many issues like Abortion, Education, Support for the poor and middle class, immigration, religion and science, and so on and so on.
I can’t speak for born7od, but he did say that there “is no real difference.” And I and many others agree because it’s simply true. Democrats and Republicans certainly aren’t “exactly the same.” But they are generally the same for many reasons. I won’t go into detail and derail the thread, but I might put up a thread about this and explain it since so many people still seem to not understand that Democrats and Republicans are like two peas in a pod. Quite frankly, they’ve never been so similar to me until recently, yet I can’t understand how people still can’t see it.FuriousOne wrote: »Btw, England has multiple parties but only one to two ever have a voice that matters. The country has had multiple parties and has multiple parties but many of those parties support fringe issues and the rest aren't strong or organized enough to mount a real challenge even though you saw potential in those like Paul and Perot.
The existence and support of “third party” politicians such as Paul and Perot is indication alone that there are political philosophies that are significantly different than the major two parties and are legitimate/acceptable in the eyes of the public. The fact that there are so many factions (Tea Party, neoconservatives, social conservatives, libertarians, Religious Right, etc.) within the Republican Party alone is even more indication. You also have to realize that once something becomes mainstream, it does so because it has changed (i.e., “flip-flopped”) in order to appeal to the majority. If a Mitt Romney is pushed to be the frontrunner, even though many in his own party didn’t even like him that much, then he was pushed to be the frontrunner because he has the most mass appeal. Same with Obama. Since this is true, both frontrunners will inevitably overlap in their mass appeal. Yet both frontrunners, perhaps Romney more than Obama, are far from truly representing the different factions and members of their respective parties.
I don’t know too much about Britain, but what you’ve said seems to be the case in Canada as well. That doesn’t necessarily mean that two parties are sufficient or that the two parties are very dissimilar. Besides, I have read that other countries with multiparty systems like Sweden, Spain, the Netherlands, Germany, and even Pakistan have experienced better and more competitive success. And that is the way it is supposed to be, especially in America. How is it that you can be boxed in with the lesser of two evils in a nation that prides itself about freedom of choice, competition, and representation?
At least when it comes the mainstream Republicans and Democrats, I can't honestly understand how anyone can say that there is a clear difference between the two. Especially in today's time. Yes, there is a few relatively sharp differences, if you can even call it that. But for the most part, it's two peas in a pod or same ? , different ? . And it's only logical that so many people see this and have been outspoken about it. And all of this is why it's so important to support non-mainstream Republicans and Democrats and/or third party politicians who aren't pandering demagogues and who are actually principled advocates for a genuinely better America. It's crazy how Obama gets a pass even though he's generally playing out Bush's third and fourth term and Romney's first term.
I can explain myself with paragraph after paragraph, but I sifted through some good YouTube videos that do a good job at explaining my stance:
Obamney 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXgJEd6grx8Democrats are the New Republicans
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Jc4U4ugi_4George Carlin, the GOAT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBrARSKQQs8 Comments
-
i don't know, i am a single-issue voter and one party has enshrined telling me to ? off in their national platform. do we consider that a little difference or not
-
You're really a single-issue voter? You don't care to vote on immigration, wars, economic policy, foreign aid, abortion, ? marriage, drug policy, issues concerning civil liberties, and the infinite amount of other issues that affect America? Just on gun rights?
I have conceded that mainstream Republicans and Democrats differ on a few issues such as gun control/gun rights, immigration, etc. But I still contend that both are panderers and compromisers and generally agree on so much more that affects America. And this is why very little change happens in America. This is why one must support non-mainstream candidates if one hopes to effect change. I think that most people fall for the trap of being boxed in with the two evils and choose the lesser evil as if the two are vastly different when they are essentially not. Again, Obama is very much like Bush and what Romney would've been if he was elected. But people want to be blind to that fact. Others have fortunately noticed. -
Is that a bad thing? Most Americans are either moderate, left of center or right of center. An extremist would have a hard time winning the presidency. With all the checks and balances set up, it's difficult to have mass radical change on any level. Obama and Bush do differ on key issues Americans view important.
-
Abortion.
"but Swiffness-"
ABORTION.
Third parties you say? Ross Perot's Reform Party was torn apart by Abortion. Ross tried to keep them neutral on Abortion and failed. The Libertarian Party's platform on Abortion is a deal killer for many people that would otherwise vote for them. There is no compromise position on Abortion.
Abortion is the best friend the 2 party system ever had.
That alone is all the difference America ever need. Its easy to talk that ? if you don't care at all about abortion. But if you do...............
Why are you so amazed that people have one issue that takes priority over the others? There are major issues like SUPREME COURT appointments where the Democrats and Republicans might as well be from different galaxys. All the brilliant arguments and horrible "bi-partisan" policies in the world can't erase that simple fact. There are a bunch of Nader voters in Florida that learned that the hard way, probably before they blew their brains out lol.
And frankly, multi-party parliamentary democracy is not some Utopia. Pakistan can't have an election without ? getting clapped and blown up by suicide bombers. Sweden has spent the last 20 years embracing Conservative "Free Market" policies, if you wanna know how that's turned out read about the riots that their racists are of course blaming on ? immigrants. Israel is a great example of how multi-party systems can leave you with Extremist ? calling the shots. If America had a system like THAT, sure you'd have the Green Party winning elections (yay! cool!), but you'd also have THE WHITE PRIDE PARTY winning elections (ok that is not good). Word to Germany. (LMAO @ listing Germany as a model of ideal democracy ? ? that, I need to see Germany NOT vote in History's Greatest Monsters for a while more before I can award them any democracy cool points)
Fact is, a leader can only do so much when the people are corrupt. Bill Maher has stressed this point much more than the "Dems n Repubs are both the same". If your populace is a bunch of racist slaveholders for example, changing the party system ain't gon do ? .
oh and btw very little change happens in America because the Founders inadvertently designed a system where its EASY to pass certain laws and DAMN NEAR IMPOSSIBLE to pass others or repeal bad laws.
-
Abortion, capital punishment and ? marriage are the three bug issues that divide people the most
-
They differ mostly on wedge issues (healthcare, Abortion etc) but I've said it before that the Dems are a right wing party and the Reps are a far right wing party.
The problem is that some people are just plain disagreeable, that's a fact. It pulls people further and further apart.
Most Americans are moderates/centrist voters and are rational people but these parties have irrational people in them and controlling them (especially the Republican Party), its fair to say that there isn't much difference but on the wedge issues they will never find safe ground.
Both parties are corrupt and any additional parties would be corrupted by the same sources: money and power. Losing control of the parties was inevitable from the beginning, but now slowly but surely we lost control of the Fedral Government including the Supreme Court and now even local elections are being taken over.
All this makes the difference between parties shrink as local elections have begun to take on the same verbiage and vitriol as the National ones. It's still easier to be a moderate of either party on the local scale but the days of that are closing too.
The spineless compromising of democrats actually help the republicans pull their party further and further right as the republicans attempt to stress more and more unreasonable differences. An example is obamacare, that was originally a right wing idea but since republicans have gone even further right since then it's become a "liberal" idea. Even the liberal media is acting like its a liberal idea! Over time it won't matter, because you won't be able to tell one party from another at this rate. -
word
last couple of election cycles i've been left with a choice between a demo who is looking out for the interests of corporations and is in favor of gun control, and a republican who is looking out for the interests of corporations who is against gun control...
in an ideal world yes i would agree that we should support third party candidates and lesser known names.
but in reality the majority of these candidates lack access to money one would need to compete with the politicians who do have the financial backing of big corporations. that's why first i we feel as a country we have to push for a change in campaign finance before we see any real changes in politics -
we need participatory democracy not representative
-
first off, there is essentially no purpose in my voting in a federal election, so remove that from your consideration, which then eliminates a lot of your problem, i bet. second, half the ? you're talking about (let's say wars or economic policy or drug policy or civil liberties or foreign aid) sees no real difference between the GOP and the Democrats.You're really a single-issue voter? You don't care to vote on immigration, wars, economic policy, foreign aid, abortion, ? marriage, drug policy, issues concerning civil liberties, and the infinite amount of other issues that affect America? Just on gun rights?
third, yeah, that's all i actually GIVE A ? about. you know how guys who are big on ? rights or racial equality focus JUST ON THAT and no one gives them a hard time about it? okay, the civil right that i focus on is gun rights. the end.
in 2013 janklow's all kinds of jaded, man, what do you want me to say -
And_So_It_Burns wrote: »Is that a bad thing?
I think so.And_So_It_Burns wrote: »Most Americans are either moderate, left of center or right of center. An extremist would have a hard time winning the presidency.
I think that I get what you’re saying, but I think that a lot of this “moderate,” “right,” and “left” labels are relative and too vague to be accurate or meaningful. I’m sure that many if not most Americans (like me) both advocate “left” and “right” ideas. The problem is the idea of having a rigid “left” and a rigid “right” that offers no alternative or mixed perspectives. I don’t think that moderates are welcomed and accepted because they’re not “loyal” to either side.And_So_It_Burns wrote: »With all the checks and balances set up, it's difficult to have mass radical change on any level.
I disagree. If people want change, then they can effect it through their representatives as it’s supposed to be done in a democratic republic. It’s just that people are lazy and ignorant about this process. Besides, I want change but not necessarily what you might think of as “mass radical change.”And_So_It_Burns wrote: »Obama and Bush do differ on key issues Americans view important.
? rights, abortion, etc.? Those are much less important issues when compared to many other issues that they do seem to agree with. The president legally doesn’t even have the power to decide on these issues. That’s the job of Congress. And this is partly why I think that a lot of ignorant Americans aren’t paying attention to the relevant issues.
-
the democrats are the party of no idea,
Not sure that I understand, but if you’re saying what I think that you’re saying, then I agree.while the republicans are the party of bad ideas
Agreed.but from on outside point of view, the democrats in america are not liberals as far as policy goes, there more like the old republicans, and the republican party is the tea party now (their ideologies at least)
Agreed. Though the tea party is made up of a lot of different factions, so that’s a bit complicated. -
Swiffness! wrote: »Abortion.
"but Swiffness-"
ABORTION.
Third parties you say? Ross Perot's Reform Party was torn apart by Abortion. Ross tried to keep them neutral on Abortion and failed. The Libertarian Party's platform on Abortion is a deal killer for many people that would otherwise vote for them. There is no compromise position on Abortion.
Abortion is the best friend the 2 party system ever had.
Agreed. But this is exactly part of the problem! Single-issue voting is unproductive and ignorant. You shouldn’t vote for something or somebody because of one issue. That is bad voting. An immigrant shouldn’t only consider (most likely blindly consider) a candidate’s position on immigration when voting. An African-American shouldn’t only consider the race of a candidate when voting. An IC poster living in Maryland shouldn’t only consider a party’s “official” position on gun rights/control when voting. That’s all so short-sighted. How would you look voting for a terrible presidential candidate simply because he’s against abortion?
And let’s not forget that the president legally has no power to magically make abortion legal or illegal, so what are we really doing when we pay so much attention to a presidential candidate’s opinion on abortion? Why do we continually think that the president has so much power as if he was a king? This is why we have balance of powers among President, Supreme Court (which is admittedly a complicated issue within itself), and Congress.Swiffness! wrote: »That alone is all the difference America ever need. Its easy to talk that ? if you don't care at all about abortion. But if you do...............
I care about abortion, but it’s certainly not the end-be-all of my political stance. That I would find ridiculous.Swiffness! wrote: »Why are you so amazed that people have one issue that takes priority over the others? There are major issues like SUPREME COURT appointments where the Democrats and Republicans might as well be from different galaxys. All the brilliant arguments and horrible "bi-partisan" policies in the world can't erase that simple fact. There are a bunch of Nader voters in Florida that learned that the hard way, probably before they blew their brains out lol. -
If I’m understanding you correct, I’m not surprised that people might have an issue that they find more important than others. Again, my contention is that people, for several reasons of which I have previously stated, are using misinformation and bad judgment if they think that that one issue matters as much as they think they do.Swiffness! wrote: »And frankly, multi-party parliamentary democracy is not some Utopia.
If you think that I’m pushing for a Utopia in America, then you’ve misunderstood me. What I’m pushing for is a more responsible and knowledgeable and thus proactive American public when it comes to America’s political system.Swiffness! wrote: »Pakistan can't have an election without ? getting clapped and blown up by suicide bombers. Sweden has spent the last 20 years embracing Conservative "Free Market" policies, if you wanna know how that's turned out read about the riots that their racists are of course blaming on ? immigrants. Israel is a great example of how multi-party systems can leave you with Extremist ? calling the shots.
You mean to tell me that there is actual civil unrest and disagreement in multiparty system countries? Of course, multiparty system countries aren’t utopias. In fact, there is likely to be more dynamic (not necessarily violent however) societies in multiparty system countries. But you can’t (that is, if you are doing so) blame suicide bombings, riots, and extremism on multiparty systems. That’s hella ridiculous. These problems might be worse with two or one party systems. To counter your “evidence,” I can go search online for various benefits that multiparty systems offer in Sweden, Germany, etc. as well. All multi-party systems do, in contrast to one and two party systems, if give people more options and freedoms and representation. I can see people being scared of that, but people have always been scared of responsibility and freedom, which is why they might want two-party systems, restriction of freedoms, censorship, oppression, and simplicity in favor of what may appear to be “stability.” But America has its own civil unrest regardless of our two-party system. -
Swiffness! wrote: »If America had a system like THAT, sure you'd have the Green Party winning elections (yay! cool!), but you'd also have THE WHITE PRIDE PARTY winning elections (ok that is not good).
Again, this sounds like fear to me. People fear freedom. If a White Pride Party wants to run for elections, so be it. It’s their right. It’s anyone’s right to run for elections. With that being said, a White Pride Party that wants to violate the rights of others will not succeed because it violates the Constitution, which is American law. Therefore, such a White Pride Party would be illegal and thus a moot issue. Even if that’s not the case and a “legal” White Pride Party were to run for elections, then the majority of Americans who are anti-racist would finally be able to get up from their lazy ? and play an active role in the American political process to make sure that the White Pride Party will not win any seats. Thus, a multi-party system not only encourages different ideas to be validated and rejected through a free exchange of ideas but also encourages its citizens to be politically active in shaping their nation. What’s so bad about that?Swiffness! wrote: »Word to Germany. (LMAO @ listing Germany as a model of ideal democracy ? ? that, I need to see Germany NOT vote in History's Greatest Monsters for a while more before I can award them any democracy cool points)
When I referred to those countries that have indeed implemented multi-party systems with varying degrees of success (not “ideal democracy”), I referred to those countries in today’s time. So no, not ? Germany but modern Germany. Really? You’re bringing up ? ? Really? You also have to remember that ? Germany was not so much democratic as it was fascist. Nazis were actually anti-democratic.Swiffness! wrote: »Fact is, a leader can only do so much when the people are corrupt. Bill Maher has stressed this point much more than the "Dems n Repubs are both the same". If your populace is a bunch of racist slaveholders for example, changing the party system ain't gon do ? .
Imo, you have that backwards. People can do only so much when a leader/government is corrupt. I don’t agree with everything Maher says, but you can’t just downplay the fact that he blasted the Democrats for being Republican. Many others, even liberals, clearly see what Maher is seeing.
Not that it’s entirely relevant imo, but I partly disagree with your slavery example. It’s slightly ironic as well because if I’m not mistaken, Abraham Lincoln (who of course eventually “freed” the slaves) became president primarily because the racist Democrats were splintered among two separate parties and thus had their vote split and undermined.Swiffness! wrote: »oh and btw very little change happens in America because the Founders inadvertently designed a system where its EASY to pass certain laws and DAMN NEAR IMPOSSIBLE to pass others or repeal bad laws.
I disagree. I’m not sure how that makes much sense. The Founders designed a very proficient system imo. And I think that it’s difficult to pass virtually any law. But that’s not the Founders’ fault. It’s our representatives’ fault and thus our fault. We need to hold our selves accountable and stop blaming others. Change doesn’t happen because we’re too stupid to demand and effect it.
-
They differ mostly on wedge issues (healthcare, Abortion etc) but I've said it before that the Dems are a right wing party and the Reps are a far right wing party.
Agreed.The problem is that some people are just plain disagreeable, that's a fact. It pulls people further and further apart.
Agreed, but education and other factors can bring people together. At worst, bring people together in the form of coalitions. A few Republicans and Democrats and other party politicians have come together before and several important issues. The problem is that these politicians are stigmatized for not being loyal to the rigid, black-and-white “left” and “right” paradigm.Most Americans are moderates/centrist voters and are rational people but these parties have irrational people in them and controlling them (especially the Republican Party), its fair to say that there isn't much difference but on the wedge issues they will never find safe ground.
I mostly agree. I would say opportunistic and dogmatic even more so than irrational but meh. True, many won’t find any safe ground on the wedge issues, and I don’t expect them to. But certain progress can be and have been made. What I don’t like is that we’ve seemed to give up on the idea of what a congress is supposed to be about – diplomacy, argumentation, debate, exchange of ideas, etc. Instead, we’re just stubbornly partisan and shout each other down. -
Both parties are corrupt and any additional parties would be corrupted by the same sources: money and power.
I agree to an extent. But things would be less worse with more competition and options instead of the monopoly that exists today that offers little to no competition and options.Losing control of the parties was inevitable from the beginning, but now slowly but surely we lost control of the Fedral Government including the Supreme Court and now even local elections are being taken over.
I’m not exactly sure what you’re saying here.All this makes the difference between parties shrink as local elections have begun to take on the same verbiage and vitriol as the National ones. It's still easier to be a moderate of either party on the local scale but the days of that are closing too.
Ok, now I think that I understand what you were saying. Yeah, agreed.
It’s odd and frustrating and deceiving too because even though the two parties are basically the same, it’s these wedge issues (and only these wedge issues) that make the two parties seem so “different.” But those wedge issues are relatively insignificant when you understand it all.The spineless compromising of democrats actually help the republicans pull their party further and further right as the republicans attempt to stress more and more unreasonable differences. An example is obamacare, that was originally a right wing idea but since republicans have gone even further right since then it's become a "liberal" idea. Even the liberal media is acting like its a liberal idea! Over time it won't matter, because you won't be able to tell one party from another at this rate.
^^^ TRUTH.COM! I was going to bring that up heh. Romney had his own Romneycare. Some of that is covered in the first video that I posted. -
desertrain10 wrote: »word
last couple of election cycles i've been left with a choice between a demo who is looking out for the interests of corporations and is in favor of gun control, and a republican who is looking out for the interests of corporations who is against gun control...
True. That's the heart of it all. Both parties don't support the people or the Constitution. They support big business and crony-capitalism and corporatism (as opposed to free-market capitalism), imperialism, and globalism.desertrain10 wrote: »in an ideal world yes i would agree that we should support third party candidates and lesser known names.
but in reality the majority of these candidates lack access to money one would need to compete with the politicians who do have the financial backing of big corporations. that's why first i we feel as a country we have to push for a change in campaign finance before we see any real changes in politics
Mostly agreed. Yet still, some third party candidates have and are doing well, including winning elections. Many people don't know this, and I somewhat don't blame them, but Ron Paul did surprisingly well (in polls, straw polls, caucuses, some primaries, delegate wins, campaign money fundraising, rallies, debates) in the 2012 presidential election and actually did threaten Romney's Republican presidential candidate bid at the very end, and this is despite everything and everybody mainstream being against him. If Linda McMahon can spend $100 million in her campaign and still lose her bid to become a Senator, then I feel comfortable saying that money isn't everything. Especially if the American public is smart enough to know what's up. -
RodrigueZz wrote: »Abortion, capital punishment and ? marriage are the three bug issues that divide people the most
True. And this shouldn't be the case for various reasons of which I've previously mentioned.RodrigueZz wrote: »we need participatory democracy not representative
But isn't having the right to support, vote, and/or even become a representative an acceptable process of participatory democracy? The entire adult American population can't possibly be the lawmaker, the president, and the judge right? If that was the case, then we'd be talking about ochlocracy, aka mob rule.
-
first off, there is essentially no purpose in my voting in a federal election, so remove that from your consideration, which then eliminates a lot of your problem, i bet.
I don’t know. Why would there be no purpose in you voting in a federal election? Is it a “what does one vote matter anyway” kind of thing?second, half the ? you're talking about (let's say wars or economic policy or drug policy or civil liberties or foreign aid) sees no real difference between the GOP and the Democrats.
True, and that’s the point of my thread. However, there is real difference when you consider non-mainstream Republican and Democratic and third-party candidates, right? Those are the people we need to support to escape this ? of a two-party system that is forced on us.third, yeah, that's all i actually GIVE A ? about. you know how guys who are big on ? rights or racial equality focus JUST ON THAT and no one gives them a hard time about it? okay, the civil right that i focus on is gun rights. the end.
Well, alright. But I would certainly be against single-issue voting whether it’s gun rights or gun control, pro-life or pro-choice, pro-immigration or anti-immigration, etc. ? , many if not most black people (even on this site apparently) only care about which political party will help the “black community” the most, but that’s stupid and delusional too. It’s just wrong. And it does nothing to help all Americans and our nation.in 2013 janklow's all kinds of jaded, man, what do you want me to say
You possibly can’t be that cynical/pessimistic. Don’t let that bitterness consume you bruh.
-
Govt. is too big. They are trying to control things that should be the rights of individuals. Abortion shouldn't be their concern, neither should ? Marriage, or PED use in Sports. They should be protecting us from other countries and making sure our Money stays afloat.
-
RodrigueZz wrote: »Abortion, capital punishment and ? marriage are the three bug issues that divide people the most
True. And this shouldn't be the case for various reasons of which I've previously mentioned.RodrigueZz wrote: »we need participatory democracy not representative
But isn't having the right to support, vote, and/or even become a representative an acceptable process of participatory democracy? The entire adult American population can't possibly be the lawmaker, the president, and the judge right? If that was the case, then we'd be talking about ochlocracy, aka mob rule.
I dont actually get a say on the issues themselves in representative democracy though I just get a say on who gets a say which is flawed to me. I kind of vote for a guy I really don't know at all and hope he's gonna represent me in government. Chances are the guy is already in the pockets of the rich so that just throws democracy out the Window there.
At least if everyone got to vote on the issues themselves we could actually say it is the people who decide things. There is no participation of the people though. I mean democracy means power of the people but we see that it is not the demos that has power but the minority and it seems that this is largely maintained because of this unparticipitory democracy we have.
Everyone can run in theory but not in actuality because of the costs and qualifications necessary to be a representative of the people. -
RodrigueZz wrote: »RodrigueZz wrote: »Abortion, capital punishment and ? marriage are the three bug issues that divide people the most
True. And this shouldn't be the case for various reasons of which I've previously mentioned.RodrigueZz wrote: »we need participatory democracy not representative
But isn't having the right to support, vote, and/or even become a representative an acceptable process of participatory democracy? The entire adult American population can't possibly be the lawmaker, the president, and the judge right? If that was the case, then we'd be talking about ochlocracy, aka mob rule.
I dont actually get a say on the issues themselves in representative democracy though I just get a say on who gets a say which is flawed to me. I kind of vote for a guy I really don't know at all and hope he's gonna represent me in government. Chances are the guy is already in the pockets of the rich so that just throws democracy out the Window there.
At least if everyone got to vote on the issues themselves we could actually say it is the people who decide things. There is no participation of the people though. I mean democracy means power of the people but we see that it is not the demos that has power but the minority and it seems that this is largely maintained because of this unparticipitory democracy we have.
Everyone can run in theory but not in actuality because of the costs and qualifications necessary to be a representative of the people.
That's real ? . The republic form of government isn't working because its easier to corrupt one than one hundred. Take an issue like the Keystone pipeline for instance, where the people of the state don't get a choice, their "representative" does and whatever (s)he says will effect the lives of thousands, possibly millions. These are the people who will have to live with the inevitable leaks and being displaced.
At least in a system of democracy they have a direct opportunity to change the situation, even if they lose. Now the situation is out of their hands and kicking the guy out of office isn't likely nor does it change the eventual damage.
-
i don't live and/or vote in a battleground state and as such the electoral votes my state gives up, or the representatives it sends, are never in debate. so...I don’t know. Why would there be no purpose in you voting in a federal election? Is it a “what does one vote matter anyway” kind of thing?
yes and no. non-mainstream Republican and Democratic candidates are different? well, if they're not viable it doesn't really matter. and i don't know if you trust them to NOT toe the party line when it matters. third-party candidates are fine and i vote for them and all, but see about.True, and that’s the point of my thread. However, there is real difference when you consider non-mainstream Republican and Democratic and third-party candidates, right?
ultimately, i'm not sure how i am helping America by voting for one ? over another that's basically the same dude with some mild exceptions. at least with a single-issue focus i can have the satisfaction of not voting for someone who's working to ? me over on the sole issue i care about. i mean, you're not claiming there are politicians out there who legitimately care about the country, right?Well, alright. But I would certainly be against single-issue voting whether it’s gun rights or gun control, pro-life or pro-choice, pro-immigration or anti-immigration, etc. ? , many if not most black people (even on this site apparently) only care about which political party will help the “black community” the most, but that’s stupid and delusional too. It’s just wrong. And it does nothing to help all Americans and our nation.
oh yes i canYou possibly can’t be that cynical/pessimistic. Don’t let that bitterness consume you bruh. -
i don't live and/or vote in a battleground state and as such the electoral votes my state gives up, or the representatives it sends, are never in debate. so...I don’t know. Why would there be no purpose in you voting in a federal election? Is it a “what does one vote matter anyway” kind of thing?
Yeah, I and millions of others are experiencing the same problem. The system seems to not be working well. I’m still not sure whether the solution is mass activism and education or reform. But I’m not opting out just yet.
yes and no. non-mainstream Republican and Democratic candidates are different? well, if they're not viable it doesn't really matter. and i don't know if you trust them to NOT toe the party line when it matters. third-party candidates are fine and i vote for them and all, but see about.True, and that’s the point of my thread. However, there is real difference when you consider non-mainstream Republican and Democratic and third-party candidates, right?
Ok, few non-mainstream politicians (you vote for third party candidates but won’t vote for nonmainstream Republican and Democrat candidates who are similar?) are truly different and actually good for the nation. I just want to see a transition from sticking with the mainstream candidates (since they don’t change ? ) to supporting candidates who represent genuine change. If we do this, then these “fringe” candidates become viable and do matter. All I’m saying is that we shouldn’t cut ourselves short.
ultimately, i'm not sure how i am helping America by voting for one ? over another that's basically the same dude with some mild exceptions. at least with a single-issue focus i can have the satisfaction of not voting for someone who's working to ? me over on the sole issue i care about. i mean, you're not claiming there are politicians out there who legitimately care about the country, right?Well, alright. But I would certainly be against single-issue voting whether it’s gun rights or gun control, pro-life or pro-choice, pro-immigration or anti-immigration, etc. ? , many if not most black people (even on this site apparently) only care about which political party will help the “black community” the most, but that’s stupid and delusional too. It’s just wrong. And it does nothing to help all Americans and our nation.
But I’m saying voting (and supporting) the ones who aren’t the ? . But ok, I can understand what you’re saying about your single-voting. I honestly believe (and know) that there are politicians (regardless of how few of them there are) who are genuine when it comes to helping the nation.
Well damn.
-
RodrigueZz wrote: »I dont actually get a say on the issues themselves in representative democracy though I just get a say on who gets a say which is flawed to me. I kind of vote for a guy I really don't know at all and hope he's gonna represent me in government. Chances are the guy is already in the pockets of the rich so that just throws democracy out the Window there.
I mostly agree. This is definitely an essential problem. Again, I don’t know if mass activism and education is needed to solve this problem. Or the system needs to be tweaked/reformed for the better.RodrigueZz wrote: »At least if everyone got to vote on the issues themselves we could actually say it is the people who decide things. There is no participation of the people though. I mean democracy means power of the people but we see that it is not the demos that has power but the minority and it seems that this is largely maintained because of this unparticipitory democracy we have.
I agree and disagree. Lots of people don’t know this, but democracy can actually be a bad thing. Even the founders of this country didn’t completely accept democracy. They (as well as I) instead believed in republicanism. Unlike the word “republic,” I don’t think that the word “democracy” ever appears in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or even the Pledge of Allegiance (“…and to the republic for which it stands…).
In a true republic, all individuals (so that includes all genders, races, classes, etc.) are protected because all individuals have unalienable rights and representations that can never be violated. But in a democracy, the majority can oppress the minority. Since whites represent a majority in this country (I think), most of our voting in a democracy will inevitably be decided by white people. That’s like the saying that democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. And let’s not forget that people like ? were legally voted via democracy. So I kind of distrust heavy democracy, especially as a black man.RodrigueZz wrote: »Everyone can run in theory but not in actuality because of the costs and qualifications necessary to be a representative of the people.
Agreed. That’s another essential problem that should fixed asap imo.
