Next US President?

[Dunenewt]

I hate that man.  Oh and there is the BNP, as much as we don't like them, they must be mentioned I suppose.

I forgot the Mebyon Kernow, SNP and Plaid Cymru.

[Anathema]

I almost forgot:

http://www.atomfilms.com/2008/kung_fu_election/index.jsp

[Andrew]

Bit of a controversy with the candidates and Canada. Obama and Hillary want out of NAFTA. Obama campaign earlier told Canadian ambassador that it was political rhetoric and would not happen. But then last night Obama promised to get out of NAFTA.

If this is true, then it will definitely affect all north american economies.

[nemafakei]

For real change...

...for an honest appraisal of the USA and the world...

      ...for practical progress, not just rhetoric...

VOTE FOR

Some left-wing candidate

with no chance of winning

              In the Fed2k US Presidential Poll

[Dunenewt]

Meh, there's now three of us who voted for McCain.  Soon there will be no stopping us.

[nemafakei]

McCain -

      Soft on terrorists;

        soft on spammers.

"He wants to close Guant

[Dunenewt]

Haha, I like the references to certain Fed2k members.  Not too many people have openly criticised Some left-wing candidate with no chance of winning, which makes it hard for me to formulate my propaganda.

[Dunenewt]

Some left-wing candidate

with no chance of winning -

      Soft on immigration;

        soft on spambots.

"He wants to bring back the Gold Standard -

  will he bring back the corrupt Landsraad too?" - a Canadian islander

"He champions his libertarianist qualities -

  but isn't he bringing anarchy?"

                    - a concerned Brit

"I'm worried by his health care policies-

  I don't want to lose my Fed2l Dental Plan"

                                                            - a fellow left wing radical

[Sneakgab]

''Then we have a few others that never get more than 5% (apart from in the European elections)''

You mean in total right? With so many parties, an occasional 5% each for a few of them would actually mean a significant radical vote.

It seems sad that voting only for those with a real chance of winning who you support relative to the  other serious players rather than who you truly support has become the norm with voting for those regardless of their success seeming absurd and silly.. :(

When will these sorry excuses for democracy (USA, South Africa,e.t.c) get a taste of the real thing? Any takers?

BTW, are there any among you who earnestly feel you're self to be living in a true and effective democracy where all idealogies are given fair chance (ie: no ideology split between 20 parties, or all ideologies split equally at least). Maybe it would be more precisely defined this way: Are there any among you who feel you can vote for you who truly support without you're vote being wasted, ie: where you are free from the practical needs of voting and a populace that has not been brainwashed (one of reasonable intelligence, some might put it) to vote unthinkingly for conservatives?

I think a properly functioning democracy is one where the party currently holding govt or the parties that held govt before them do directly or indirectly hold sway over the next party elected. Oh yes, and no wealthy guys to manipulate the elections with disproportionate and biased media either. Countries where votes are hopelessly split for certain ideologies or where people vote on whichever party has held govt for the last 2 decades or so (just because they have always ruled and /or there is voter apathy and/or the voters vote like this for practical reasons because they think everyone else will vote for said party). So if you're country does not have manipulated elections nor media and also does not have this mindset, then it meets the main criteria for a properly functioning democracy that I can think of right now. Of course such a democracy could be defined in a more general way, but I think that might defeat the point of what I'm asking.

Isn't McCain supposed to want to keep things the same? One would imagine then that he would not be soft on terrorists and he would certainly be no Maverick. I'm assuming that was all sarcasm?

Lol, it is hard to formulate propaganda against people or ideas that most people know nothing about.

''Meh, there's now three of us who voted for McCain.  Soon there will be no stopping us''

Though twelve have already voted, and there aren't that many active forum users anymore so few voters remain. BTW, why do you support McCain? Is there something I don't know about him, or are you not serious?

It just occurred to me that the splitting of socialist and communist votes via so many parties in most countries across the world strikes me as rather suspicious. Frankly, one would imagine the leaders of these parties to be aware of the negative effects to their pursuits that the existence of so many parties would have, and would have the sense to merge. Many of these parties are probably artificially created by the manipulation of misled idealism as well as through other corrupt and dishonest means. If there was one socialist party as it is for the main contenders, then this party would have much more media and votes as well. With enough votes to gain a seat or two, it could possibly cause enough stir to warrant some attention and consideration, hence gaining more votes. Though one could say that since (for example) the democrats and Republicans are virtually identical in effect and policy, that often times the vote is already split for the status quo policy between the main parties.

[Dunenewt]

Because I believe that McCain will be the best choice for Americans, and for the world.  Billary is just plain awful, Obama doesn't really seem to stand for anything, and there is noone else worth considering.  I generally can't stand most socialist or communist politicians, and I'm against most things they stand for.

I think you are looking for some kind of mass conspiracy here, and you're not going to find them.  Yeah sure the Republicans and Democrats are generally quite similar in policy, but that's because most Americans have the same political view point, so if they stood for policies which were further to the right, or closer to the centre (because America doesn't really have a left), then they wouldn't get votes, that's just the way it works.

Its the same in my country.  The Liberal Democrats have to moderate their policies in order to get more votes, but by contrast, the Conservatives are going for some more liberal approaches, such as on the subject of the environment, because of the changing attitudes of the public.

For some reason you're going with the bizare assumption that socialism is perfect and is what everyone wants, but I'm afraid to say political parties in most democratic countries cater for the voters, and if the voters all believe in a particular policy, then the parties will aim to adopt that party.  Let's face it, if the most people in the US wanted Socialism, then there would be a more popular Socialist party, but they don't, so there isn't a popular party. 

The U.S. (not commenting on S.A. because of the corruption in that country, and the fact I don't know an awful lot about it post-Apartheid) is not a perfect democracy, but it is a democracy.  If 90% of the public wanted Ralph Nader, then the majority would vote for him, then he would be President.  What you're trying to get at, is that people perceive a vote for one of the minor parties to be a wasted vote, and in certain forms of democracies, they indeed are if the party isn't popular above a certain threshold.  That all depends on that particular form of government, and how parties are represented in parliments, and what kind of majority is needed to form a gov't, whether coalitions are allowed, etc.

[Andrew]

If anyione has been following it the past week, there was a NAFTAgate scandal about Obama campaign saying that the nafta argument was only rhetoric.

This got American main stream media attacking Obama.

Well it turns out that it was the Hillary campaign that said this.

'NAFTAgate' began with remark from Harper's chief of staff

This controversy will have an impact on Canadian government since there appear to be some small scandals within harper government.

[Sneakgab]

''Billary is just plain awful''

I don't know much about American politics; What is so bad about Hillary?

''I think you are looking for some kind of mass conspiracy here, and you're not going to find them''

What gives you that idea? I think you are exaggerating the bizzareness of a some ideas I've thrown out there.

''For some reason you're going with the bizare assumption that socialism is perfect and is what everyone wants''

See, I never said that. I'm not saying everyone secretly wants socialism or anything. It's just that many people vote for parties they don't truly support because otherwise their vote would be wasted. Therefore, we cannot guage the true popularity of these parties and policies just by their votes because in reality many preffered other parties and/or policies but did not want to waste their vote so they chose between the lesser evils amongst the parties with realistic chances. It may be true that parties cater to the voters to an extent, but they can't be totally yielding right. The replubicans can suddenly become non-republican. If the parties guage their voters preferences through their votes, then they are not accurately guaging support as I said earlier. Hence, they may shift to something that is not really supported but only voted for because of the ''realistic voting'' effect.

It is not to ''crazy'' to think that votes = support = party catering = party in power is party supported is not completely correct. Clearly some votes are placed in spite of support, as has been much discussed and mentioned in this thread by Edrico and others. Also, previously successful parties will gain access to better media support which will further increase votes (by itself as an isolated feature) regardless of how actual support changed since that parties previous success. Furthermore, clearly those with large amounts of money and power can have a lot of influence over elections.

''is not a perfect democracy, but it is a democracy'' See, thats basically all I was saying. Maybe I just think it's a bit farther than perfect than you do. When you're only real choice is between two very similar parties, what choice do you really have. If you are offered a choice btw murdering two identical individuals, can you really call that serious freedom to do as you please? If a democracy involves decision making by the people in some form then here I see little of such decision making. Of course you could say the dominating parties reflect what the public wants, but you can be so sure? Sure, maybe the populace isn't interested in socialism, but surely they are interested in parties that represent a serious difference to the last administration. Yet there is no ''realistic'' (party with a chance of winning) that represents this for the people to choose. Do you think that if some party with the exact manifesto and policies desires by the American citizenry popped up tommorow that this party would win and become dominant hence completing this catering effect we speak of? I strongly doubt, hence it is easily seen that it is not a party that is truly supported that win but simply the most supported party of the the ''realistic'' parties. These parties do not really need to cater closely to the desires of the people as long as there is no serious competition btw the parties. With the democrats being spineless as they are, there is no such competition to force the replubicans or democrats (neither of them change to cater the populace much, so neither of them is forced to do so by the other party) to cater to the people. Hence the people must eternally choose btw two parties they don't really support because a party they do really support does not exist, is sabotaged by similar parties splitting it's votes, or is virtually unheard of. Even if such a part does exist and that existence is common knowledge, it is not as though the citizenry regularly gathers with something akin to a poll to garner each others true interests. Citizen A thinks : rest of the country supports democrats or replubicans not party X hence he votes for party X. Citizen type A might be a more numerous type of citizen than everyone expects, but since these things are not generally discussed this will never be known and citizen A types will never use their perhaps significant vote as they do no think it significant.

Even forgetting about parties for the moment, we must remember that though a party may be supported it's leader may not, or vice versa. Yet people must vote for the whole bag. Even after that, they may not support the actions of this leader who may do something entirely different than what he promised and was supported for. Hence the populace aren't really deciding much they're just able to influence things a bit. For me the only serious form of democracy is that of direct democracy. Most think the best or most supported leader will be chosen via a kind of supply and demand but clearly that is not the case.

[gunner154]

Some left-wing candidate with no chance of winning. Definitely. Don't ask me why though :P

[Edric O]

Yeah sure the Republicans and Democrats are generally quite similar in policy, but that's because most Americans have the same political view point, so if they stood for policies which were further to the right, or closer to the centre (because America doesn't really have a left), then they wouldn't get votes, that's just the way it works.

Not true. The diversity of political opinion and the distribution of that opinion in the United States is about the same as in other Anglo-Saxon countries. It's a little bit to the right, yes, but not by much. There are plenty of left-wing people around - certainly enough to form a voter base for a social democratic party - but no such party exists, for two reasons: (1) the voting system and political culture greatly strengthen the two largest parties and marginalize all others; (2) the Democrats since Franklin Roosevelt have been exceptionally good at gathering left-wing votes under the banner of keeping the Republicans out of power, only to ignore left-wing voters and the interests of the working class when it came time to actually govern.

I'm afraid to say political parties in most democratic countries cater for the voters, and if the voters all believe in a particular policy, then the parties will aim to adopt that party.

Not really true. Political parties in most "democratic" capitalist countries don't cater for the voters in general - they don't even cater for all of their own voters in particular. They only cater for the small minority of undecided voters who can tip the balance of an election. So, for example, a US presidential candidate only has to cater for voters in swing states, and parties in the UK only care about marginal constituencies.

Let's face it, if the most people in the US wanted Socialism, then there would be a more popular Socialist party, but they don't, so there isn't a popular party.

Most socialists in the US vote for the Democrats because they're very afraid of the Republicans. The desire to keep the Democratic Party united prevents the rise of any other left-wing parties.

For some reason you're going with the bizare assumption that socialism is perfect and is what everyone wants...

Socialism is clearly not what everyone wants, but I would say that it is what most of the apolitical people want.

People interested in politics, like us, usually have a set ideology that they support as a matter of principle. Apolitical people, on the other hand - who are by far the majority of the population - don't support ideologies as a matter of principle. They merely support whatever is best for them personally. And socialism is better than capitalism for the great majority of people; just as important is the fact that socialism proposes to give every citizen equal power in the running of the economy. So I would say that most apolitical people will gravitate in the general direction of socialism if left to their own devices.

Of course, however, many of those people don't vote, and those who do vote tend to be strongly influenced by the media.

[exatreide]

Im a socialist in the US that votes for the democrats because I fear the republicans.

Well someone asked me if i was blue or red.

I said I was Red.

The Good kind

[Edric O]

Well someone asked me if i was blue or red.

I said I was Red.

The Good kind

Hehe, nice one. I bet the Democrats are so spineless that they wouldn't adopt the colour red if it was given to them, out of fear they may be associated with socialism.

Im a socialist in the US that votes for the democrats because I fear the republicans.

You shouldn't. That will just give the Democrats an incentive to ignore your opinions, because they know you'll vote for them anyway, no matter what they do, as long as they are less bad than the Republicans (and it's not exactly difficult to be less bad than the Republicans).

Yes, you should vote for the Democrats if you expect that it will be a close race in your area, but only in that case. If it's not a close race, vote for one of the small socialist parties - assuming they are active around your area.

What needs to happen in the US is the development of a united socialist parties in areas strongly controlled by the Democratic Party - because there won't be any danger of splitting the vote in favour of the Republicans there, so the Democrats can be safely attacked.

[Anathema]

Ex, you could always move to Vermont and spearhead the independence movement...

[Edric O]

Wow, I wasn't aware that the Vermont Second Republic movement had grown prominent enough to be known in the Netherlands. I only found out about it recently because I have a number of close friends from Vermont. I thought it was a closely guarded secret or something like that. Guess I was wrong...

Anyway, Vermont isn't economically viable as an independent country.

[nemafakei]

Edric, it's still up to the people of Vermont to decide. In any case, Vermont could declare independence and then join with Canada.

[Anathema]

Wow, I wasn't aware that the Vermont Second Republic movement had grown prominent enough to be known in the Netherlands. I only found out about it recently because I have a number of close friends from Vermont. I thought it was a closely guarded secret or something like that. Guess I was wrong...

Anyway, Vermont isn't economically viable as an independent country.

Nothing escapes the discerning eye of the Dutch...

and agreed, having an economy based almost entirely on maple syrup spells trouble.

[Edric O]

Edric, it's still up to the people of Vermont to decide. In any case, Vermont could declare independence and then join with Canada.

Ah, the same issue that was discussed with regard to the independence of Kosovo... what criteria do you use to determine which particular groups of people have a right to self-determination? And you cannot say that any group should have such a right, because that would imply that I should be able to get together with a couple of friends and establish an independent country.

[Acriku]

Don't know about a state claiming independence, a large precedent was formed when the US federal government removed the right of the South to claim independence. Would be interesting though, for Vermont to become its own. To people around here in Orlando who are fed up with the government interfering with our lives, we see Vermont as a safe-haven. We may just love the autumn trees though :D

[Andrew]

Hillary Clinton Lies About Her Bosnia Trip 1 min youtube video

[Wolf]

I'm willing to bet it will be John McCain. The Democratic candidates are doing too much to alienate one half of their political  party, and I heard on Leno (not the most newsworthy source, I know, but hey) that McCain was ahead in the latest poll by as much as 7%. Hillary and Obama will do so much to discredit each other that even a Republican can (and will) finish the job.

And to be honest, the more I think about it, the more I like McCain. He seems to be the only rational individual in the running at this point. He's proven that he's willing to be genuinely bipartisan and work with the other side -- even and especially as the right radicals spew forth bile about him. I mean, if Rush Limbaugh hates someone, then where do I sign up to vote for them, you know? He (John, not Rush) won't pull out of Iraq, but I don't think that immediately pulling out is really the right answer -- I can see that blowing up in whoever's face that tries it, and doing even more damage to this once-great country.

And, as a side-note, Florida's really done it. I mean, again? They're trying to mess up an election? If they cause more trouble, I say we seriously consider revoking their statehood.

EDIT: Oh, by the way, hi again, everyone! :D

[Mahdi]

I defiantely agree that McCain was a great choice by the Republicans.  Until he was chosen as the candidate I didn't think they'd have anybody that could compete with the democrats.  Now, even facing a "historic" opponent no matter who wins, he has a good chance with hsi cross over appeal.

I'm more left leaning than right, and I'd prefer to see the democrats get in, but, hoenstly, I don't think I'd pick either Obama or Hillary over McCain right now.