| El Veto-Voter |
09-09-2016 07:08 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beest
(Post 968530)
Great!
I don't care, in this thread, who you vote for, even if it is opposed to my own choice I believe ultimately America will be be better for greater participation.
|
Having watched for many decades, and studying the historical evidence of centuries, I can find no evidence for such beliefs. Just because the power-mongers preach it -- doesn't men it is true.
Greater participation just gives the consent of more people. It does not improve the quality of persons elected, nor the likelihood that they will really represent their "constituents".
Quote:
Originally Posted by sexobon
(Post 968547)
It may get the more popular candidate into office if everyone with that preference actually votes.
Even if you didn't back the winner voting still reduces the winner's victory margin so they don't think they have carte blanche to ignore the concerns of those who didn't vote for them, especially if they can run for reelection.
|
It would be nice to think so, as I did for decades. However, in real politics it is the special interests and campaign funders whose concerns don't get ignored. The votes of the losers are counted for the winners as people who support the system and consent to whatever it does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beest
(Post 968576)
It is my observation that a lot of the people voting are those with a single hot button issue that get's them all fired up, and the more hard line you are on their issue the better. Since these are the people who actually vote they get the attention of politicians seeking office, so we get hard line, my way or no way, candidates who when they get into government won't work together and not much get's done.
I believe that people with more moderate views don't find these candidates appealing, so don't bother to vote, downward spiral.
If everyone voted then candidates with a balanced platform would have a broad base to appeal to and extreme candidates would be sidelined.
You would get more politicians who would do the work of governance and less posturing poseurs.
Hopefully
|
You are correct on many points. However, it is my contention that what government does is mostly bad for most of us, and will mostly always be. So, if the radicalization and election of extreme candidates really did cause them to get less done, it would be a good thing.
However, they mostly just pretend to oppose each other to keep their minions hyped up. When there is something truly odious to do, they cooperate greatly and pass it as bi-partisan, with hardly any fanfare. All the worst stuff gets passed without publicity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by henry quirk
(Post 968626)
Am I a wacko extremist cuz I believe elected folk should viewed as, treated as, employees instead of nobility?
Am I a wacko extremist cuz I'm dissatisfied with the glorified popularity contests we call elections?
Am I a wacko extremist cuz I wanna hire the best proxies, employees, and public servants instead of electing the least crappy of a crappy bunch of mercenary parasites?
Am I a wacko extremist for wanting the formal option to say 'no' to appear on every ballot, of every election, from the federal down to the municipal?
Am I a wacko extremist for living as though I'm responsible for me?
Am I a wacko extremist for resisting being used by folks who think I should I be responsible for, or to, them?
Am I a wacko extremist for wanting the taxes I pay to be spent responsibly, minimally, and productively?
I could go on and on and on... :neutral:
|
Don't worry Henry.
"Wacko Extremist" is a term used by those who are mired in their moderate myrmidon training, and can't find any rational reply to threads of new thinking. |
