Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

The US of A

Posted Aug 11, '14 at 2:05pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,746 posts

With Military Presidents, you wouldn't have to worry about them wanting to change things for themselves, because they would have died for the country they would now be running.


???

Isn't this why we can't make big changes? Because of all the people who would rather jump on the political bandwagon instead of researching and developing their own ideas and opinions about things?


It's because people like to associate themselves with a group. When they can look to a name or place and say "that's where I belong" it's comforting to them. They don't have to really think about their choices because they just follow the party lines.

Why do we only ever hear of the main two, Democratic and Republican?


Money.

Who would be choosing the presidents?


The electoral college chooses regardless. Our votes don't matter.

It's all about the votes that come in the poll box


Nope.
 

Posted Aug 11, '14 at 2:08pm

thepyro222

thepyro222

2,237 posts

Isn't this why we can't make big changes? Because of all the people who would rather jump on the political bandwagon instead of researching and developing their own ideas and opinions about things?

In short, yes. It's easier to pick a side than to try and introduce a new topic

There are dozens of political parties? Why do we only ever hear of the main two, Democratic and Republican?

Because they have the most money. The more money = the more campaigning = more people hearing about that party.

The problem with electing people is that it's all about money. Candidates have lobbyists (what I think they're called, I could be wrong) who sponsor that politician's campaign, and in return, that politician will vote, make laws and what not to the favor of that lobby. That's why the system is ****ed up as it is.
 

Posted Aug 11, '14 at 2:25pm

rychus

rychus

1,301 posts

Our votes don't matter.


Then why make a big deal out of voting every four years? Why even vote?

Nope.


How so?

Because they have the most money


So the party with the most money, achieves the Presidency?
 

Posted Aug 11, '14 at 3:57pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,746 posts

Then why make a big deal out of voting every four years? Why even vote?

Why indeed? Two parties overwhelmingly garner the most votes and both parties are extremely similar except for a few issues. They each have cult followings and an extreme amount of money to campaign. And regardless of what you vote, the electoral college is what actually determines who is elected president - it's simply a correlation between popular votes that sort of determine who gets what electoral votes. Bush won in 2000 and he didn't have the popular vote. A majority of the country didn't vote for him, but he was still elected president.

How so?

Voting is almost entirely determined by money. Whoever has the most to campaign and bribe (aka, I'll work to pass this policy if you contribute to my campaign) is by far the most likely to win. After all, the Supreme Court ruled that money is speech - whoever has the most speaks the loudest is what they think is right, I guess.

So the party with the most money, achieves the Presidency?

Look it up and tell me what you find.

 

Posted Aug 11, '14 at 5:45pm

rychus

rychus

1,301 posts

Look it up and tell me what you find.


I found this
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/23/opinion/krumholz-money-elections/]

It states that Obama and Romney had both used, and made quite a bit of money for their election, but Obama had spent more than Romney did. This doesn't prove that if you have more money, you win, but it is some evidence towards it. And I can understand that with more money spent, you reach more and more people. And if you can reach the people the other candidate can not, that seals your victory right?
 

Posted Aug 11, '14 at 6:05pm

09philj

09philj

2,410 posts

Hmmm...

As a comparison in the effectiveness in spending more to win, in the last UK general election in 2010, the result was no overall majority, and resulted in a coalition between the parties with the most and third most seats. However, the difference in campaign spending between the parties was very big. For the largest three parties, in order of the number of seats won, spending was:

Conservative Party: £16.6m
Labour: £8m
Liberal Democrats: £4.7m
(Source: Electoral Commission)

The Electoral Commission also set a £30,000,000 spending limit per party.

 

Posted Aug 11, '14 at 7:18pm

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

10,000 posts

Because the parties are not a physical separation

 

Posted Aug 12, '14 at 4:48pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,475 posts

Because the parties are not a physical separation

Then Alaska and Hawaii shouldn't count because there is one.
 
Reply to The US of A

You must be logged in to post a reply!