General discussion

Locked

Should Barack Obama be reelected?

By maxwell edison ·
Tags: Off Topic
Yes or no, and why?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

247 total posts (Page 1 of 25)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

NO.

by boxfiddler Moderator In reply to Should Barack Obama be re ...

For the same reason Romney shouldn't be elected. Any two political parties with the power to lock out a viable third party candidate need their power strangled. Gary Johnson, Libertarian, is currently on the ballot in 47 states, and in litigation against the DNC/RNC power mongers to make the remaining three. Go Gary.

Screw the Dems and Reps. This is a mess both parties made, and I'm sick to death of both of them.

Collapse -

Anyone interested in getting out of the two-party headlock, look here:

by AnsuGisalas In reply to NO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
That's the only way to have a viable third, let alone fourth, fifth etc. party.
And that, in turn, is the only way to keep wingnuts on both sides from getting more influence than they're supposed to have.

The good news is, it's super effective: You have First-past-the-post representation as an inheritance from British rule, New Zealand used to have it too, for the same reason. In 1994, NZ passed a new law to go to mixed-member proportional representation instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation
And already from the next election, in 1996, the two-party system was bust - no party has been able to rule without a coalition since.

Some states have popular demand referendums as an option, right? You could get the ball rolling today, if'n you really want it.

Collapse -

Maybe you need to consider the ranked or preferential system of voting

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Anyone interested in gett ...

as in this wiki article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting_systems

We have it in Australia and currently have a minority government where the independents have the sway of power in the federal government. The downside is the minority government has to cater to all sorts of minor rubbish issues to keep the independents on side.

Collapse -

Alternative vote is problematic...

by AnsuGisalas In reply to Maybe you need to conside ...

if a vote for a candidate can lessen their chances at winning, that's messed up.

First Past the Post is worse though, since it in theory allows 51% of cast votes to get 100% of representation. Good for getting things done, but so is dictatorship... and arguably, I think a good many Americans would like their government to get *less* done, not more.

Collapse -

Not really, what happens is they take the votes and set them out by

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Alternative vote is probl ...

the first vote. If no one has over 50% then they take the person with the least votes and redistribute those votes, repeat until someone has more than 50% of the votes.

Collapse -

No.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Should Barack Obama be re ...

I don't think he's been particularly effective. On the other hand, Mitt Romney hasn't given me any reason to think he'd be an improvement, so I may stick with the devil I know. Barry SHOULDN'T win, but he WILL.

I wish presidential candidates would stop promising what they will do if elected. They never acknowledge that the president doesn't work in a vacuum, and none of his (her?) promises or proposals are going anywhere without Congressional cooperation. That's where the 'business experience' advantage falls down; business leaders don't have to negotiate their decisions. Carter and Bush Jr. were both businessmen and history isn't regarding either as a shining light. Maybe the head of a non-profit would be better, with more consensus building skills. Reagan, one of the most highly regarded presidents of my lifetime, started his elected career as a union leader.

Collapse -

Palmy, I have a sure fire way to work out who to vote for in elections

by Deadly Ernest In reply to No.

I look at the list and decide who I think is the worst possible candidate and vote for them last. Then review the list and repeat the previous steps until I got none left.

The sad thing about the US electoral system is if people do NOT want Obama, they HAVE to get out and vote for someone else or the small minority that do want Obama will win through lack of opposition.

Remember, for evil to win, all it takes is for good people to do nothing.

Collapse -

Quibble on a false assumption.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Palmy, I have a sure fire ...

"...the small minority that do want Obama will win through lack of opposition."

Depending on what polls you read, Obama is preferred by a slight majority. Mind you, pollsters usually only talk to 'likely voters', but I suspect the preferences break down the same way among non-voters. The sad thing is those people who don't vote but want to ***** about office holders and their policies. Regardless of which candidate is chosen, he could win 100% of the votes cast and would still have been selected only by a minority of those eligible. People in emerging democracies will walk two days and stand in line for two more to vote; here we won't come out if there's a 70% chance of rain; gods forbid it should snow. I think Max has questioned whether we want people that easily discouraged to participate in the first place. Somedays I agree, some I don't.

Another sad thing is that the process of running for office has become so demeaning that many qualified individuals refuse to consider candidacy.

Collapse -

Not to mention

by boxfiddler Moderator In reply to Should Barack Obama be re ...

if we don't put a stop to some things pretty soon, we're hosed. 'Our' government is increasingly bought and paid for by corporate and banking interests. Any day now I expect national debt to reach the point we can't even cover the interest on it. Obama spits out Executive Orders like he's wielding a royal sceptre, and I expect the same from the glaringly ambitious and probably sociopathic Romney. Google hallmarks of facism and 12 of 14 on a list are in progress. Never mind, here's the link: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html

Oh, and let's not leave out war. Iran is next. How many of our youth are we going to waste on oil?

And let's not leave out our growing hypocrisy on human rights. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/opinion/americas-shameful-human-rights-record.html?_r=0

Police state, anyone? http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/19-signs-that-america-is-being-systematically-transformed-into-a-giant-surveillance-grid

I'm sick, just sick over what this nation is becoming.

Collapse -

Boxie, two things about Romney to keep in mind,

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Not to mention

1. His whole upbringing and life has stressed good fiscal management and care of finances; thus I don't see him being a big spender on airy-fairy projects. If anything, he may be a bit too tight on the spending, but he has plenty of experience in senior management from his own businesses.

2. He's not a sociopath and is very down to earth, again, most of that is from the upbringing and life he's lived. I expect he's going to be very careful in studying things before pushing them out. However, I do expect there's a few things he's been studying for many months that he'll probably push out as soon as he deems it practicable to do so.

As to the bit about fascism, you do realise that 13 of those 14 items also apply to socialist dictatorships too.

I'm glad I don't have to vote in this election, but faced with a choice of Romney or Obama, I see Mitt as the lesser of two evils by a huge margin. The most evil thing about Romney is the part and party leaders he has to work with, while Obama has all that in spades and is also a proven liar who does NOT have the best interests of the USA or its citizens in mind in any decision he makes.

Back to After Hours Forum
247 total posts (Page 1 of 25)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Off-Topic Forums