The 2012 United States Presidential Election

[OlivetNaz]

Originally Posted by illini80

Clearly you are correct, BUT the voters are the real culprits. They are the ones that allow it to continue and will not support candidates who are willing to make tough choices. Illinois is the perfect example. We(they) elect the same people year after year no matter how badly they trash this once proud state.

There is only one thing that matters to a majority of voters. What are you going to do for ME????

I agree in part and disagree in part. The larger the scale the election takes place on, the more opportunity for ignorance and corruption. There's a reason that local elections and small area elections (state legislature, house of reps) don't usually have fraud and corruption issues. The chances are far greater that the voters will have interacted in person with the candidates, and get a much better sense of what makes the candidate tick.

However, when you get into larger elections or elections where a few hold most of the power - like statewide Illinois elections - then the potential for voter ignorance comes into much greater play. The use of corrupt and coercive tactics to influence the election also comes into play.

There is also a theory that I studied as an undergrad that in the United States, the average non-corrupt term of service is 10-14 years. Basically, a candidate first enters politics from a desire to do good. However, once they've been in their elected post for a certain amount of time (10-14 years), they have accumulated enough power and influence that they become more concerned about increasing their power and staying there than they do about the constituents that elected them.

This is why I support term limits in Congress - 12 years combined total for legislators (senate and house) - that's two full senate terms, six house terms, or three house terms and one senate term. After that, they're done. They are still eligible for President, but only after a six year hiatus from DC to allow any backroom agreements to fade enough to not affect the presidency.

[illinirazorback]

Originally Posted by Sybok

I couldn't disagree more. Voters have no control over the money power brokers in DC or the large special interest groups. as an individual voter you have one shot. Beyond that, the system grinds on. The only way to change the system is to set strict term limits for all elected offices right on down to the local dog catcher.

Voters have ALL the control. If they were to pay attention, they could easily vote out of office anybody who takes such awful special interest money, or whatever evil doing Congress has done this month. But alas they do not. Whether it's by choice or by ignorance, the buck always stops with the voter.

[Sybok]

Originally Posted by illinirazorback

Voters have ALL the control. If they were to pay attention, they could easily vote out of office anybody who takes such awful special interest money, or whatever evil doing Congress has done this month. But alas they do not. Whether it's by choice or by ignorance, the buck always stops with the voter.

The voter has one vote. The voter only counts for him/herself. In the land of pink ponies and pretty unicorns all voters are completely educated and in complete agreement as to what changes need to be made. You can barely get 2 people on this forum to agree about anything. How do you propose the voters are going to have all the control?

[illini80]

Originally Posted by Sybok

The voter has one vote. The voter only counts for him/herself. In the land of pink ponies and pretty unicorns all voters are completely educated and in complete agreement as to what changes need to be made. You can barely get 2 people on this forum to agree about anything. How do you propose the voters are going to have all the control?

I am amazed at your response. I don't want to make this personal, but no one has ever been elected without the voters selecting them. As razor says, either out of ignorance or by choice. Either way it is NO ONE's fault but the voters. You can blame Blago if you want, but who are the fools who elected him? Not once, but twice? Who has controlled the budget in Springfield for decades? The same person who just got re-elected. So do the voters not care, or they are too stupid to know the state is going broke? It's one or the other. They had a choice.

There is also a choice coming up. If an idiot is elected, who's fault is it?

[illini80]

Originally Posted by OlivetNaz

However, when you get into larger elections or elections where a few hold most of the power - like statewide Illinois elections - then the potential for voter ignorance comes into much greater play. The use of corrupt and coercive tactics to influence the election also comes into play.

But there is an option to remove them every 2,4, or 6 years. Unless you are only concerned about what they are promising you.

I agree 100% on term limits. It would cure much of what's wrong.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by illini80

So do the voters not care, or they are too stupid to know the state is going broke? It's one or the other. They had a choice.

I will go with both. People are really, really stupid. The bell curve has long tails on it.

There are simply 4 groups of people in the world.

Smart and hard working.
Smart and lazy.
Dumb and hard working.
Dumb and lazy.

Almost everyone thinks they are in the first group. Unfortunately in my experience 80% are in group 4, 15% in Group 3, 4.5% in group 2 and 0.5% in group 1.

[wpr]

this cartoon for some reason reminds me of this thread. go figure.

[Sybok]

Originally Posted by illini80

I am amazed at your response. I don't want to make this personal, but no one has ever been elected without the voters selecting them. As razor says, either out of ignorance or by choice. Either way it is NO ONE's fault but the voters. You can blame Blago if you want, but who are the fools who elected him? Not once, but twice? Who has controlled the budget in Springfield for decades? The same person who just got re-elected. So do the voters not care, or they are too stupid to know the state is going broke? It's one or the other. They had a choice.

There is also a choice coming up. If an idiot is elected, who's fault is it?

If an idiot is elected, whose fault is it? You should first clarify who the idiot is running for office and then you need to make sure that at least 50% of the electoral college agrees with you and then last but not least, you had better make sure that 50% EC votes for the candidate that you are holding up as not being an idiot. Good luck and maybe sometime you'll understand what I posted and not be quite so amazed in the future.

[bmb777]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

I will go with both. People are really, really stupid. The bell curve has long tails on it.

There are simply 4 groups of people in the world.

Smart and hard working.
Smart and lazy.
Dumb and hard working.
Dumb and lazy.

Almost everyone thinks they are in the first group. Unfortunately in my experience 80% are in group 4, 15% in Group 3, 4.5% in group 2 and 0.5% in group 1.

80% is a bit low in my opinion

[wpr]

[Sybok]

Originally Posted by wpr

That's awesome and sadly true in most instances. :laugh:

[Snowball]

Some conflicting polling data the last couple days. Nothing new with that. But overall seems so far the race will be tight between Obama and Romney.

"Obama Leads by Healthy Margin in Poll"

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/20...l/#more-791198

&

"Game On: First Gallup Tracking Poll Shows Narrow Romney Lead"

http://blogs.the-american-interest.c...w-romney-lead/

[KBLEE]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Some conflicting polling data the last couple days. Nothing new with that. But overall seems so far the race will be tight between Obama and Romney.

"Obama Leads by Healthy Margin in Poll"

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/20...l/#more-791198

&

"Game On: First Gallup Tracking Poll Shows Narrow Romney Lead"

http://blogs.the-american-interest.c...w-romney-lead/

Call me biased, but somehow I tend to believe Gallup / Rasmussen a bit more than CNN / ORC.

[DaytonIllini]

It'll be a referendum on Obama's four years in office. If he is viewed favorably, he'll win. The economy and foreign events will largely shape this over the next few months unless one of them has a major gaffe.

[KBLEE]

Ted Nugent for VP.

[pizzaman]

Getting elected and governing are now mutually exclusive skills. Those who get elected are far from idiots but are in fact skilled tacticians who have "gamed" the election to appear to appeal to a majority of voters. The means nothing when it comes to governing and as a result, our leaders are lacking in the skills to effectively govern and lead. All they can do is banter about the differences between them and the other party.

I'm going back to my old days of voting third party candidates and not getting sucked into having any hope. Expect nothing and avoid disappointment.

[ryls]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

It'll be a referendum on Obama's four years in office. If he is viewed favorably, he'll win. The economy and foreign events will largely shape this over the next few months unless one of them has a major gaffe.

What is the Obama plan for fixing entitlements? What is his plan for deficit reduction? Taxing the rich is his only answer, he has no plan, if he does have one anyone has seen, please tell me what it is?

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by ryls

What is the Obama plan for fixing entitlements? What is his plan for deficit reduction? Taxing the rich is his only answer, he has no plan, if he does have one anyone has seen, please tell me what it is?

Liberals don't think entitlements are broken or that the budget is a problem. Given that thought process, why have a plan to fix them?

[IntenselyOrange]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Liberals don't think entitlements are broken or that the budget is a problem. Given that thought process, why have a plan to fix them?

That's not entirely true Dayton. I think it's clear that they feel entitlements do not go far enough and hope to increase their size and scope.

[uiba99]

Originally Posted by IntenselyOrange

That's not entirely true Dayton. I think it's clear that they feel entitlements do not go far enough and hope to increase their size and scope.

LOL, now you guys have me convinced that I'm not a liberal.

BUT THEN WHAT AM I???? :laugh:

[steps away from the computer to have a crisis of self]

[illinirazorback]

Originally Posted by uiba99

LOL, now you guys have me convinced that I'm not a liberal.

Welcome back to the light.

[breadman]

Nice to see a good healthy discussion going on about current events.
For my part, allow me to contribute two words:
First word - Ron
Second word - Paul.

Nuff said, or rather, just the beginning!!

[IntenselyOrange]

Originally Posted by uiba99

LOL, now you guys have me convinced that I'm not a liberal.

BUT THEN WHAT AM I???? :laugh:

[steps away from the computer to have a crisis of self]

:laugh:, you're just realizing this now.

uiba =/= liberal idealogue. You may be liberal, but you actually have a brain and give thought to your positions.....and occasionally even admit the flawed logic in liberalism.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by uiba99

LOL, now you guys have me convinced that I'm not a liberal.

BUT THEN WHAT AM I???? :laugh:

[steps away from the computer to have a crisis of self]

Most people that view themselves as liberals do so because they fervently believe in one or more of the following.

Right to choose
Care about environment.
Don't favor a huge military presence.
Interested in freedom.
Interested in fairness to women/minorities

The thing is that many of these people detest wasteful spending, excessive government, huge deficits, high taxes.

So they have no party. They can sacrifice the first group of concerns and go with the Republican party or they can sacrifice the second group of concerns and go with the Democrats.

Of course both parties pay only lip-service to either set of concerns so we never resolve any of these issues. That is why a libertarian party is the answer. For the many people that are socially moderate or liberal and fiscally conservative, who value freedom and liberty, the libertarian party is the answer.

If it could build any kind of momentum, I believe you'd see a 3 party system where the two big parties have to pander to the libertarians to get the votes necessary to accomplish anything.

[uiba99]

That's a pretty fair analysis, Dayton. My concern with the Libertarian Party is that some of its economic principles are unworkable and perhaps impractical in the current climate in America. People fear drastic change but fail to notice the subtle changes that over time become drastic.

In terms of social libertarianism, I'm already there.