Historical Remedies
Dr H
On 1 Nov 2000, Michael Loftus wrote:
}Gary, try changing the record, we understand that you think everyone who
}thinks differently from you is an idiot. But it is interesting to note
}that your candidate, who could not out-debate, or out-campaign the mental
}midget from Texas, now so desperately needs the tiny percentage of voters
}dedicated to a new way of government. And how helpful you are telling us
}how stupid WE are. Makes me wanna RALPH!
I personally feel that were Nader to be elected he would have to
compromise so much in order to attain a shred of effectiveness as a
president that his position would be hopelessly corrupted by the
status quo. I'd rather have him dinging the system from the outside,
where he has a proven record of effectiveness, even if it means voting
for the lesser of evils to sit in the White House.
And I don't get to vote for either of /them/ directly, anyway.
Dr H
Dr H
On 1 Nov 2000, pamela guthrie wrote:
}If you knew more of the history of Gore you would understand that Gore has
}more potential
}to take us there(Reagan-Bush Land) than Bush. It's the idots who lack
}historical knowledge,
}and refuse to listen to it, that are depended upon to make us repeat
}history. It is the "idiots"
}that make the two party system such a critical and predictable tool for the
}Bougeoisie to take
}us back to the dark ages. Knowing, very well, Gores past 25 years, I imagine
}that there are a
}number of Republicans in Washington, DC, secretly praying that Bush doesn't
}make. Of course
}I could never bring myself to vote a Republican ticket, and a vote for Nader
}is a vote for
}Democracy, change and, hopefully, an easier Nader ticket to the 2004
}campaigns. The evil of
}two lessers (Gore) is not an option in my book.
If we are going to start talking idiocy, then if you believe that the
system is corrupt it's idiotic to vote for /anybody/. Voting is playing
the game the system has set up for you to play, to give you the illusion
that you can change anything important playing by the system's rules.
Dr H
Dr H
On 1 Nov 2000, pamela guthrie wrote:
}I would like to try and simplify my point; There are two basic flaws in
}this ‘argument’ (below); #1 is the belief that in ANY political system
}there is ANY chance for a candidate who is not willing to be a politician
}of some sort. And, actually, Nader did try that non-political position for
}the last elections and failed miserably to get his message to the voters.
}I had no respect for his attempt to run for office because he wanted
}the public to come to him, to simply ask for him to be president. That
}was arrogant, and very naïve. This time he has gone out and worked
}hard.
Good point. And if he were to actually get elected, after six months
in office he would be indistinguishable from Gore or Bush, except
maybe he'd whine more.
Dr H
pamela guthrie
Dr H wrote:
> On 1 Nov 2000, pamela guthrie wrote:
>
> > snip. It's the idots who lack
> }historical knowledge,
> }and refuse to listen to it, that are depended upon to make us repeat
> }history. It is the "idiots" }that make the two party system such a critical
> and
> predictable tool for the }Bougeoisie to take
> }us back to the dark ages. snip... The evil of
> }two lessers (Gore) is not an option in my book.
>
> If we are going to start talking idiocy, then if you believe that the
> system is corrupt it's idiotic to vote for /anybody/. Voting is playing
> the game the system has set up for you to play, to give you the illusion
> that you can change anything important playing by the system's rules.
> Dr H
I responded to an "idiocy" statement made by another. Voting is saying you want
to participate in the process that could make a better system if enough people
did it.
Not voting is lazy, and frankly, doesn't leave room for commenting or whining.
What could make this a true Democracy is a better approach to candidate/issue
reviews
and a turn out of more than 85% of eligible voters.
pamela guthrie
Dr H wrote:
> On 1 Nov 2000, pamela guthrie wrote:
>
You know this to be unequivocally true? You are will to judeg something
this serious having never tried it?Well, I'm unwilling to judge the potential
here, so....I'll try it anyway.
Likewise, I would never tell a child not to try the peas and carrots before
opting for mashed potatoes all their lives, and then continue listening to
their
whining because thery're still hungry.
Dr H
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, pamela guthrie wrote:
}
}Dr H wrote:
}
}> On 1 Nov 2000, pamela guthrie wrote:
}>
}> }historical knowledge,
}> }and refuse to listen to it, that are depended upon to make us repeat
}> }history. It is the "idiots" }that make the two party system such a critical
}> and
}
}> predictable tool for the }Bougeoisie to take
}
}> }us back to the dark ages. snip... The evil of
}> }two lessers (Gore) is not an option in my book.
}>
}> If we are going to start talking idiocy, then if you believe that the
}> system is corrupt it's idiotic to vote for /anybody/. Voting is playing
}> the game the system has set up for you to play, to give you the illusion
}> that you can change anything important playing by the system's rules.
}> Dr H
}
}I responded to an "idiocy" statement made by another. Voting is saying you want
}to participate in the process that could make a better system if enough people
}did it.
Voting is saying you want to play the game by the rules that have been
handed to you by someone else.
Don't get me wrong: I vote. I believe that all possible means of reform
should be utilized if one wants to effect change. Voting, however, is not
especially high on my list of things that are likely to have any major
impact on changing a corrupt political system -- and voting for president
doesn't make the list at all.
}Not voting is lazy, and frankly,
Maybe it's lazy for people who actually claim to like the system, but to not
the participants in the system. For those who feel completely disenfranchized
from the system, not voting can be a statement of position.
}doesn't leave room for commenting or whining.
Truly, that's probably the main reason I bother to vote at all -- so
no one can use the tired argument the "if you don't like the way things are,
it's a free country -- vote to change them" on me.
}What could make this a true Democracy is a better approach to candidate/issue
}reviews and a turn out of more than 85% of eligible voters.
It will never be a true democracy until we abolish the electoral college
and allow the people to vote directly for president and vice president.
The precentage of turn-out means nothing in a presidential election; if
only one person votes for president, all the electoral votes in the state
will go to the candidate they voted for. Maybe.
Dr H
Dr H
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, pamela guthrie wrote:
}
}Dr H wrote:
}
}> On 1 Nov 2000, pamela guthrie wrote:
}>
}> }this ‘argument’ (below); #1 is the belief that in ANY political system
}> }there is ANY chance for a candidate who is not willing to be a politician
}> }of some sort. And, actually, Nader did try that non-political position for
}> }the last elections and failed miserably to get his message to the voters.
}> }I had no respect for his attempt to run for office because he wanted
}> }the public to come to him, to simply ask for him to be president. That
}> }hard.
}>
}> Good point. And if he were to actually get elected, after six months
}> in office he would be indistinguishable from Gore or Bush, except
}> maybe he'd whine more.
}>
}> Dr H
}
}You know this to be unequivocally true?
Let me put it this way: I know it to be true in the same way that
others' claim to know it's true that Gore and Bush are "the same".
}You are will to judeg something
}this serious having never tried it?
Tried what? Voting for a third party candidate that has no chance at
all of getting elected to office? I've done it many times. I may or
may not do it this time. If I do, it will be only because I like the
idea of throwing a third-party monkey-wrench into the system, and not
because I think Nader would make a good president.
}Well, I'm unwilling to judge the potential
}here, so....I'll try it anyway.
}Likewise, I would never tell a child not to try the peas and carrots before
}opting for mashed potatoes all their lives, and then continue listening to
}their whining because thery're still hungry.
Well, you'll excuse me for being a little cynical, but in the past
third-party monkey-wrenches haven't seemed to have had much effect on the
system's operations. Their impact pretty much ends when the media
tires of their perceived entertainment value.
Dr H
pamela guthrie
Dr H wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, pamela guthrie wrote:
> }Dr H wrote:
> }> On 1 Nov 2000, pamela guthrie wrote:
> }> > snip. It's the idots who lack snip
> Dr H
> Voting is saying you want to play the game by the rules that have been
> handed to you by someone else.
>
> Don't get me wrong: I vote. I believe that all possible means of reform
> should be utilized if one wants to effect change. Voting, however, is not
> especially high on my list of things that are likely to have any major
> impact on changing a corrupt political system -- and voting for president
> doesn't make the list at all.
>
> }Not voting is lazy, and frankly,
>
> Maybe it's lazy for people who actually claim to like the system, but to not
> the participants in the system. For those who feel completely disenfranchized
> from the system, not voting can be a statement of position.
>
A non statement you mean? It is still a vote, of sorts. If this is the way people
feel
then they don't have an understanding of the system. Granted people can feel
disenfranchised.
But this usually results from no public input.
> }doesn't leave room for commenting or whining.
>
> Truly, that's probably the main reason I bother to vote at all -- so
> no one can use the tired argument the "if you don't like the way things are,
> it's a free country -- vote to change them" on me.
>
> }What could make this a true Democracy is a better approach to candidate/issue
> }reviews and a turn out of more than 85% of eligible voters.
>
> It will never be a true democracy until we abolish the electoral college
> and allow the people to vote directly for president and vice president.
>
I agree that the electoral college should be abolished but that's because it is
antiquated and was a repressive tool of colonialism. I believe that only once
or twice in history have the electoral college votes had any effect on the actual
popular vote results. But use this as an example of how change could be effected.
Get the issue on the ballots and then vote out the electoral process. It's simple
mechanics
but you need a lot of people working and voting to get it to happen.
> The precentage of turn-out means nothing in a presidential election; if
> only one person votes for president, all the electoral votes in the state
> will go to the candidate they voted for. Maybe.
> Dr H
??? You are talking in circles here. Maybe? Doesn't this make more of a point for
voting?
pamela guthrie
Dr H wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, pamela guthrie wrote:
> }Dr H wrote:}
> }> On 1 Nov 2000, pamela guthrie wrote:
> }> }snip}>
> }> Good point. And if he were to actually get elected, after six months
> }> in office he would be indistinguishable from Gore or Bush, except
> }> maybe he'd whine more.
> }>
> }> Dr H
> }
> }You know this to be unequivocally true?
>
> Let me put it this way: I know it to be true in the same way that
> others' claim to know it's true that Gore and Bush are "the same".
That's just babble. Some people have looked closely at the candidates and the
issues
and KNOW how alike they are, where their strategic issues differ, and what might
be a
better approach. Then there are those who are too lazy to research or follow
behaviors
of potential leaders through the years, but still want to make blanket statements
and
and assumptions. Unless someone can talk issues and specific strategies it's hard
to tell
what they actually know from what is just hot air. You have no idea, as far as I
can tell,
how Nader would behave in office. Nor do I but, so far, I would rather give him an
opportunity to
prove himself while working toward another election year, than to send the message
that
I just 'wanna go with the herd.
> }You are will to judeg something
> }this serious having never tried it?
>
> Tried what? Voting for a third party candidate that has no chance at
> all of getting elected to office? I've done it many times. I may or
> may not do it this time. If I do, it will be only because I like the
> idea of throwing a third-party monkey-wrench into the system, and not
> because I think Nader would make a good president.
>
No, not just voting for a third party. But, voting in a close election for someone
who will have an opportunity to continue in the arena on a path toward the next
election.
>
> }Well, I'm unwilling to judge the potential
> }here, so....I'll try it anyway.
> }Likewise, I would never tell a child not to try the peas and carrots before
> }opting for mashed potatoes all their lives, and then continue listening to
> }their whining because thery're still hungry.
>
> Well, you'll excuse me for being a little cynical, but in the past
> third-party monkey-wrenches haven't seemed to have had much effect on the
> system's operations. Their impact pretty much ends when the media
> tires of their perceived entertainment value.
> Dr H
Nader has already proven this premise, of yours, to be untrue. He continued to
work hard
after '96 and will get an even bigger push from these elections. Nader has had a
huge impact
on issues and people. I appreciate his willingness to beat himself up in the ring.
I do know,
though, there is some disagreement on how he has handled a few things. Those
important
issues must be addressed. I would rather start at the level of Nader than drop
down to the
level of Gore OR Bush politics.
Pamela
Dr H
[are you e-mailing /and/ posting, or just e-mailing?]
On Mon, 6 Nov 2000, pamela guthrie wrote:
}
}Dr H wrote:
}>
}> Maybe it's lazy for people who actually claim to like the system, but to not
}> the participants in the system. For those who feel completely disenfranchized
}> from the system, not voting can be a statement of position.
}>
}
}A non statement you mean? It is still a vote, of sorts.
Calling it a "non-statement" is meaningless. Not voting projects a
position, therefore it is a statement. The statement may be different
for different people, and the statement may be interpreted (or
misinterpreted) differently by others, but it is a statement noentheless.
If it is noticed that a lot of people aren't voting, then it is important
to ask *why* it is that they're not voting.
}If this is the way people feel then they don't have an understanding of the
}system.
I disagree: they may understand the system only too well.
}Granted people can feel disenfranchised.
}But this usually results from no public input.
Indeed? I think it results from a lack of responsiveness to public
input on the part of those in poser.
}> It will never be a true democracy until we abolish the electoral college
}> and allow the people to vote directly for president and vice president.
}>
}
}I agree that the electoral college should be abolished but that's because it is
}antiquated and was a repressive tool of colonialism. I believe that only once
}or twice in history have the electoral college votes had any effect on the actual
}popular vote results.
It may well affect the outcome in this presidential election.
}But use this as an example of how change could be effected.
}Get the issue on the ballots and then vote out the electoral process.
}It's simple mechanics but you need a lot of people working and voting to
}get it to happen.
Simple? This is a federal system you're talking about changing. In order
to change the electoral college system you need to get your representatives
to either propose federal legislation, or get them to propose an
amendment to the federal constitution. This is not something that can
be changed by local initiative petitions.
To date, federal legislators have shown a monumental lack of interest
in even considering the question of the electoral college.
}> The precentage of turn-out means nothing in a presidential election; if
}> only one person votes for president, all the electoral votes in the state
}> will go to the candidate they voted for. Maybe.
}> Dr H
}
}??? You are talking in circles here. Maybe? Doesn't this make more of a
}point for voting?
Not at all. Most states are "winner take all" as far as electoral
votes. Although I have never missed an election, I know for a fact
that my vote has never had an impact on the outcome of the electoral
votes for president in the state of Oregon.
So you tell me: what's the point?
Dr H
Dr H
On Mon, 6 Nov 2000, pamela guthrie wrote:
}
}Dr H wrote:
}
}> }Dr H wrote:}
}> }> }snip}>
}> }> Good point. And if he were to actually get elected, after six months
}> }> in office he would be indistinguishable from Gore or Bush, except
}> }> maybe he'd whine more.
}> }>
}>
}> Let me put it this way: I know it to be true in the same way that
}> others' claim to know it's true that Gore and Bush are "the same".
}
}That's just babble.
Hey, we are talking politics, y'know? Comes with the territory. ;-)
}Some people have looked closely at the candidates and the issues
}and KNOW how alike they are, where their strategic issues differ, and
}what might be a better approach. Then there are those who are too lazy to
}research or follow behaviors of potential leaders through the years, but
}still want to make blanket statements and and assumptions. Unless someone
}can talk issues and specific strategies it's hard to tell what they actually
}know from what is just hot air.
I have looked closely at the candidates and the issues. I have come to
the conclusion that there is *no* official candidate for the presidency
that I really want running this country.
}You have no idea, as far as I can tell, how Nader would behave in office.
I have as much of an idea as I do about Bush and Gore.
}Nor do I but, so far, I would rather give him an opportunity to
}prove himself while working toward another election year, than to send the
}message that I just 'wanna go with the herd.
What "opportunity"? He has *no chance* of getting elected.
}> }You are will to judeg something
}> }this serious having never tried it?
}>
}> Tried what? Voting for a third party candidate that has no chance at
}> all of getting elected to office? I've done it many times. I may or
}> may not do it this time. If I do, it will be only because I like the
}> idea of throwing a third-party monkey-wrench into the system, and not
}> because I think Nader would make a good president.
}
}No, not just voting for a third party.
That's the *only* practical reason to vote for a non-viable candidate --
so that their party gets on the next official ballot in one's state.
}But, voting in a close election for someone who will have an opportunity
}to continue in the arena on a path toward the next election.
The fact that it's likely to be a close election is the best reason
to /not/ vote for a non-viable candidate -- this is exactly what the
"a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" people are trying to convey.
}> }Well, I'm unwilling to judge the potential
}> }here, so....I'll try it anyway.
}> }Likewise, I would never tell a child not to try the peas and carrots before
}> }opting for mashed potatoes all their lives, and then continue listening to
}> }their whining because thery're still hungry.
}>
}> Well, you'll excuse me for being a little cynical, but in the past
}> third-party monkey-wrenches haven't seemed to have had much effect on the
}> system's operations. Their impact pretty much ends when the media
}> tires of their perceived entertainment value.
}
}Nader has already proven this premise, of yours, to be untrue. He continued to
}work hard after '96 and will get an even bigger push from these elections.
}Nader has had a huge impact on issues and people.
Nader's impact has been entirely due to his social activism vis-a-vis his
consumers' advocate position. If his political campaigning has had any
significant impact on issues and people, I've yet to see it.
}I appreciate his willingness to beat himself up in the ring.
A fool's errand.
}I do know, though, there is some disagreement on how he has handled a few
}things. Those important issues must be addressed. I would rather start at
}the level of Nader than drop down to the level of Gore OR Bush politics.
If you *really* want to see Nader get elected at some point in the
future, then you should do your damnedest to get every Nader supporter
you know to write to him and persuade him to run as a democrat (or a
republican). If he doesn't, he will never inhabit the White House in
either of our lifetimes.
Dr H
Dr H
On 7 Nov 2000, Dr H wrote:
} Indeed? I think it results from a lack of responsiveness to public
} input on the part of those in poser.
^^^^^^^^
<ahem> ... in -power-
Slight Freudian slip, there. :-)
Dr H
Dan Robinson
election email, and trying to get some new Internet software
working.
On 2000-11-06 hiaw...@efn.org said to dan...@efn.org
>Voting is saying you want to play the game by the rules that have
>been handed to you by someone else.
It's not about wanting to, but recognizing that's the way of
"life, the universe and everything". Meanwhile you keep trying to
change the rules. If you don't (seem to) succeed, the universe
will eventually do it for you, or maybe to you.
>Don't get me wrong: I vote. I believe that all possible means of
>reform should be utilized if one wants to effect change. Voting,
>however, is not especially high on my list of things that are
>likely to have any major impact on changing a corrupt political
>system -- and voting for president doesn't make the list at all.
I put campaigning quite a bit higher than voting.
>}Not voting is lazy, and frankly,
>Maybe it's lazy for people who actually claim to like the system,
>but to not the participants in the system. For those who feel
>completely disenfranchized from the system, not voting can be a
>statement of position.
Voting for a third party is essentially a more "active" vote for
none-of-the-above and against the establishment, focusing our
protest on one person who can present a real threat to the
two-party system, which Nader did quite successfully. Too bad
other parties didn't join behind him.
>It will never be a true democracy until we abolish the electoral
>college and allow the people to vote directly for president and
>vice president.
..and when we bring in proportional representation and related
systems, which will erode the two-party system, and when we
altogether get rid of candidates as we know them. As we get more
used to computers in politics, we can move more towards direct
democracy, but preferably not too far. But I don't think this
will happen by conventional means. We need to sneak it in the
back door. ("True democracy" suggests "pure" or "perfect", the
unreachably infinite end of the spectrum.)
>The precentage of turn-out means nothing in a presidential
>election;
But maybe the high percentage this time may mean that people are
taking a more active role in protesting. Too bad more of them
weren't focused on the main protest candidate.
I also like the idea that we split the vote so evenly, and maybe
created a contradiction in popular and electoral votes, in lieu
of them being far enough apart in poll percentages that half of
both parties would have felt it was safe to vote for Nader
Dan Robinson dan...@efn.org
Eugene OR 97401 www.efn.org/~danrob/
The first step in changing the system
is to be free of dependency on what is.