Let's just say it: The Republicans are the Problem

[BelieveinScience]

Well, there's plenty of time between now and the election to educate yourself. Most of it involves lining up your own personal values with the party that most closely matches. Both parties have all sorts of problems, but when I inventory and evaluate my credos, the only serious party I can align with is democratic (although I would vote for a republican IF I thought that person was a better choice). It doesn't mean that I co-sign with everything the democrats do or believe. Frankly, Obama is too far right to me on many issues (he's more Nixonian policy-wise - without the Watergate issue, obviously) and I am aggravated about numerous things, but while I'm aggravated by the democrats pretty frequently and regularly, I am downright terrified of the Right. If that's the definition of lesser of two evils, then I guess it is.

I believe we vote because it is the only voice we have. I personally believe it is a civic responsibility to educate oneself and vote accordingly. That's my personal opinion and what I've taught my own children, not an indictment of your decision not to vote. I'm just attempting to answer your question, "why vote?" from my POV.

Thanks for the reply. I'm sure I am educated in politics enough to vote(my gov't teacher told me I'm really educated in basic politics) but I just feel I am. I just don't feel that I am old enough to have enough life experiences to vote in the right manner (does that make any sense??). I'm in my early 20s and I know most of my friends voted for who their parents did. Which is just dumb, in my opinion. I'm also pretty much right down the middle of the two parties too so I have this dilemma of which stuff is more important.

I'm finding this election too hard to care about because the politicians aren't really trying to help the citizens its more them battling eachother out so that republicans can take over or so that the democrats can take over type of thing.

[RR88]

It is just as much someone's right to not vote as it is to vote. The right to vote is not necessarily a responsibility.

[Austin]

It is just as much someone's right to not vote as it is to vote. The right to vote is not necessarily a responsibility.

Fine, but if one can't be bothered to vote, I don't believe they have the right to complain. Or at least be taken seriously while doing so.

[meda]

It is just as much someone's right to not vote as it is to vote. The right to vote is not necessarily a responsibility.

No, with rights comes responsibilities. It is a citizen's responsibility to vote. Some one should not be compelled to vote, but they have a responsibility to do so.

[fluttershies]

Never happen. The US has had a two-party system almost from its birth, mostly because we have a "winner-take-all" as opposed to a "proportional representation" system.

But the UK also had a two-party system once we actually had a working Parliamentary system, and now we have a three-party system but still don't have proportional representation. It's not either/or.

[BelieveinScience]

Ok, this will sound preachy, and I don't mean this as an attack, this attitude bothers me a lot. It is your basic duty as a citizen to become educated about politics and the positions and actions of politicians. "why bother, they all suck" is a cop out for a number of reasons:

1. It's intellectually lazy

2. It's not true. Many politicians are not very effective, and some may be actively awful, but many people at the local, state and even national level are dedicated, engaged elected officials who care about what they do. Find out who they are and vote for them.

3. It's profoundly naive to expect politicians to be upright, virtuos superheroes. Politicians are human and have human flaws, that does not mean that they are not effective at legislating.

4. You are abdicating your right to have any say about the political direction of this country.

5. If you are a woman, the decision to not vote is an insult to the many women who marched and fought and were ridiculed and even killed so that you could have the right to help determine how this country is governed.

Start slowly, read your local paper, check out some reasonably mainstream newsmedia options, avoid Fox and MSNBC to start. I will step down off the soapbox now

I don't expect politicians to be perfect, if you're talking about their personal lives I don't care about someones personal life if they can do a good job. I also don't really complain about anything the government does very rarely do I say anything about it. I don't see how me not voting is an insult to other women- I don't feel its right to vote for someone just because he's the lesser of the two evils even though I may only like one or two of his platforms.

[fluttershies]

Er, I just realised that sounded terrible. For confused Americans, if you are at a loose end, google Tommy Sheridan for a and b, Gerry Healy for c, everyone ever for d and e, well, I shall forbear from comment. We aren't all like that, honest.

Anyway, back on topic, I wonder can any Americans explain this to me? The Tea Party is a faction within the Republican party, correct? If so, to what extent do they come under party discipline?

JFC, fwiw I laughed :)

And there's not really any kind of party discipline or even much of a party structure like we would recognise it in the US.

[Rosa]

I'm finding this election too hard to care about because the politicians aren't really trying to help the citizens its more them battling eachother out so that republicans can take over or so that the democrats can take over type of thing.

Do you have a local race this year? State legislature, county board, city council? That's as important as the presidential race. Your local newspaper probably sends a questionnaire to all the candidates and puts the answers up online, so you can know where they stand on various issues - there will probably be one that moves you. I have a great problem here - generally on local issues we have several really good candidates and it's hard to choose. But there's usually still one point of differentiation.

[RR88]

No, with rights comes responsibilities. It is a citizen's responsibility to vote. Some one should not be compelled to vote, but they have a responsibility to do so.

Rights are not coercive. If voting is a right, it cannot also be a duty or a responsibility. There's a reason rights "come with responsibilities" but are not responsibilities themselves.

[Rosie]

I think the 80s was when the Republicans began courting the fundies--specifically the religious South. For a long time, being Southern meant voting Democrat because a lot of notable Republicans were all up in the Civil Rights movement. I am thinking of the Dixiecrats. At some point the tide turned, probably when the Civil Rights movement won in many ways and we moved on to other social issues that were not as Republican-friendly. For a few decades Republicans have made courting the Bible Belt a major part of their strategy.

I remember some of these games under GWB--Democratic leaders would help write a bill, then publicly denounce it. I don't recall a lot of this before then, although I was younger and did not follow politics. Unfortunately, we are not talking about a few bills here. The Republicans have made this a strategy; Ron Paul is known for it; he makes sure that any bill he can get his hands on has plenty of pork benefiting his own community, then makes a show of voting against it. The result is that his people get all the benefits of a big government representative while he can claim he is against it.

The Republicans are sabotaging our government by keeping it from running. They fight unreasonable battles and refuse to vote for anything that is a Democrat's idea, even if it is something that they traditionally would support. Obama recently proposed a budget for next year that will begin paying off the deficit. Trillions in cuts, modest increases in taxes, a compromise that we can all support with the knowledge that we do need to start paying our bills. Not a single Democrat voted for it because it was so right wing. Not a single Republican voted for it because it was proposed by Obama. That's right: Obama proposed a compromise bill that should make the Republicans very happy and yet it received not a single vote. I think it was 0-97. When the Republicans get around to passing a budget, I assure you that it will not make as many or as deep of cuts, because they only *claim* to be fiscal conservatives.

Obama is nice guy, but I fear he is too nice. He seems unwilling to get knee-deep in the politics game. It makes him look like a saint, but it does nothing to turn up the heat on conservatives who are refusing to do their jobs.

Yes, exactly. In fact, Goldwater said the same thing:

[desertvixen]

They really should have rammed through what they could when they had a majority because conciliatory reaching across the aisle gets jack squat done and impresses no one, but getting shit done can win some support.

This. Attempts at bipartisanship? I'm for them. However, if the other side won't play along, then screw them and get it done.

I agree the 2 party system is killing government, and would be all in favor of proportional representation. I've considered the Green Party, but they seem like they are a little insane in places.

I also agree that if you don't vote, you don't get to bitch about how things are done. Vote for what you judge as the lesser evil if there's not a better option.

[RR88]

Goldwater was awesome. Said a lot of smart things! :)

[gardenvarietycitizen]

An interesting thought, fluttershies. I could see it happening.

Course, if it was the UK left they would have already split and the split would have involved allegations of a. swingers' clubs, b. perjury, c. rape, d. petit bourgeois vacillations, e. lack of party discipline, f. all of the above...

Yeah but the UK (and Japan, the other government I'm intimately concerned with) has a parliamentary system. That really changes things quite a bit.

Personally I think I prefer the parliamentary system.

[fluttershies]

Yeah but the UK (and Japan, the other government I'm intimately concerned with) has a parliamentary system. That really changes things quite a bit.

Personally I think I prefer the parliamentary system.

Could a parliamentary system ever work in the US though? It seems too big.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

But the UK also had a two-party system once we actually had a working Parliamentary system, and now we have a three-party system but still don't have proportional representation. It's not either/or.

Yeah, proportional representation is where it's at - that's how you get viable tiny tiny parties. At which point, if the system is run like in the UK (I think, anyway) or Japan, the heads of those tiny parties, no matter how insane they might be, always get an official mouthpiece to speak on the official news (well, having a REAL national broadcaster helps too!!) in response to anything the PM might do. In Japan, the PM makes a big "my views for the government speech" (sort of like the State of the Union in the US but it's right after he gets a new term) and each of the party heads gets to do a rebuttal, that's in addition to the usual questioning that happens when a new bill is introduced or whatever. Even though forever there was one party in power (which is a legitimate problem, though now that party is out and oh, oh OH are they pissed) the various factions of the one party acted like parties, really, and there was debate.

I've often thought that in the US, if only they would let ALL of the candidates debate, or ALL of the parties debate, even the insane ones, you'd have viable gadflies who would at least ask the uncomfortable questions, and that in itself is useful, even if those candidates never actually gain power.

But yeah, it's about having proportional representation. In Japan now (it has changed multiple times) you have two votes, one for a party (for the proportional seats) and one for a name (for an overlaid "you vote for a single person" blocks). The proportional votes guarantee that you will always hear the official Communist party view on any issue, even though they have very few seats (somewhere around 2%).

Add to that, the ability to dissolve the government and force elections adds for some new intrigue but more importantly (from my POV) it means you don't know when the elections will happen. You don't have to game them out two freakin' YEARS in advance. People are always angling, sure, but once it's obviously going to be called it gets called and you have a month campaign and that's IT.

It's certainly not a panacea, there's a problem now where too many MPs are kids of former MPs, and people are complaining. And of course there's the endless "coming down from heaven" problems (where former government regulators get sweet, sweet jobs in companies they regulated before). But the US has those same problems too.

Russia has a parliamentary system, doesn't it? I don't think size is a limiting factor, it's just a different system. Any system will have districts, etc.

[FlorenceHamilton]

I just want to say that I am honored to be a member of this group. I am not certain when (or how) we morphed from a simple snark site to a think tank. I do know that we have some wonderful minds here and get involved with some wonderful discussions.

Carry on.

[StarrieEyedKat]

I just want to say that I am honored to be a member of this group. I am not certain when (or how) we morphed from a simple snark site to a think tank. I do know that we have some wonderful minds here and get involved with some wonderful discussions.

Carry on.

Seconded - I can very honestly say that I've learned more here then I did in high school, especially about how the government works. Thanks, to all of you brilliant ladies (and men)!

[Witsec7]

Fine, but if one can't be bothered to vote, I don't believe they have the right to complain. Or at least be taken seriously while doing so.

Every one of those anti woman state laws is going to be challenged and taken up on appeal. It is imperative that people realize the next election in our country determines the supreme court that will hear those appeals. Don't want autonomy over your body, the right of reproductive choice, then don't vote.

[HijabiLady]

I registered as Independent the day I turned 18 and swore to vote on the candidate that was most moderate. However....

Then I learned about the Electorate college and felt so disheartened. Though I still vote every election I can't help feel it's all a waste of time when the EC basically picks the president and popular vote be damned. Case in point, GWB getting his first term via the cluster fuck we witnessed on national TV. That was when I realized the EC could actually vote against the popular vote and my single vote meant shit.

Now I may be uneducated in this respect and am willing to eat crow but can someone refute the EC basically makes our individual votes as useless as toilet paper? Government is not my strong point but I try to stay abreast in basic government workings.

[RR88]

I just want to say that I am honored to be a member of this group. I am not certain when (or how) we morphed from a simple snark site to a think tank. I do know that we have some wonderful minds here and get involved with some wonderful discussions.

Carry on.

Yes, I enjoy this aspect of Free Jinger very much. It seems that the collective intelligence and knowledge here is quite abundant and powerful. And I say that as someone whose politics is quite different from that of most FJ members. ;)

[JesusFightClub]

The UK parliament is first past the post, but the devolved parliaments have a form of proportional representation. This does give the smaller parties a look in, we have Independents too.

Gardenvariety, I remember the Japanese Communist Party well. My mate who I visited Japan with was constantly amazed by them. His idea of a communist was me, basically (he's apolitical) and then he sees these guys in suits and housewives in twinset and pearls...:D

[slickcat79]

I registered as Independent the day I turned 18 and swore to vote on the candidate that was most moderate. However....

Then I learned about the Electorate college and felt so disheartened. Though I still vote every election I can't help feel it's all a waste of time when the EC basically picks the president and popular vote be damned. Case in point, GWB getting his first term via the cluster fuck we witnessed on national TV. That was when I realized the EC could actually vote against the popular vote and my single vote meant shit.

Now I may be uneducated in this respect and am willing to eat crow but can someone refute the EC basically makes our individual votes as useless as toilet paper? Government is not my strong point but I try to stay abreast in basic government workings.

Err...I find toilet paper very useful :? I can understand the frustration with the electoral college, though. In some ways, it only matters how you vote in those states which have the potential to swing either way. During the last presidential election, I thought it wouldn't matter how I voted because my state would certainly go red. As it turned out, they actually had a tiny majority in support of Obama, but he didn't need those EC votes anyway. If you look at a situation like the "chad controversy" in 2000, those EC votes from FL were the deciding factor. In that sense, it was only a few hundred individual votes that made the difference.

Or, as was mentioned upthread, local and state politics are important too, maybe even more important than national politics. I am voting in NC's primary election next week. I don't really feel I have any impact on who the republicans choose as their presidential candidate (and I don't really care), but I want to take the opportunity to vote against the gay marriage ban that they have managed to place on the ballot. Unfortunately it is expected to pass, but I'd like to do everything in my power to see that it doesn't.

[Maggie Mae]

Err...I find toilet paper very useful :? I can understand the frustration with the electoral college, though. In some ways, it only matters how you vote in those states which have the potential to swing either way. During the last presidential election, I thought it wouldn't matter how I voted because my state would certainly go red. As it turned out, they actually had a tiny majority in support of Obama, but he didn't need those EC votes anyway. If you look at a situation like the "chad controversy" in 2000, those EC votes from FL were the deciding factor. In that sense, it was only a few hundred individual votes that made the difference.

Or, as was mentioned upthread, local and state politics are important too, maybe even more important than national politics. I am voting in NC's primary election next week. I don't really feel I have any impact on who the republicans choose as their presidential candidate (and I don't really care), but I want to take the opportunity to vote against the gay marriage ban that they have managed to place on the ballot. Unfortunately it is expected to pass, but I'd like to do everything in my power to see that it doesn't.

I'd say state and local politics are much more important to your daily life than voting in the national elections. For one, your vote goes further (state and local elections are so poorly "attended" that they are often won by just a handful of votes) and you vote on things like property taxes and for mayor. Of course, if you live in Anchorage, Alaska, your vote probably didn't count if you were able to vote at all.

http://www.themudflats.net/2012/04/30/a ... still-time

[Witsec7]

This thread is a good reminder for me, my primary ballot was delivered on Sat. I need to vote.

[aggiek]

I just want to say that I am honored to be a member of this group. I am not certain when (or how) we morphed from a simple snark site to a think tank. I do know that we have some wonderful minds here and get involved with some wonderful discussions.

Carry on.

I agree. Just this morning I heard an interesting story on NPR about this topic:

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/30/151522725 ... n-congress

"However awkward it may be for the traditional press and nonpartisan analysts to acknowledge one of the two major parties, the Republican Party, has become a resurgent outlier, ideologically extreme, contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime, scornful of compromise, un-persuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition."

"And when you have Mitch McConnell saying, after the first two years of the Obama administration, in effect, well, of course we wouldn't cooperate with him because if our fingerprints were on any of those policies, and they were popular, he'd get credit for them."

I thought this interview was fascinating in the way a train wreck is fascinating. The book is called " It's Even Worse Than It Looks".