Confessions of an Obamabot Cheerleader.

[johnaries]

Mods, I know that I am using "keywords" that would automatically flag this post for deletion.

To everyone else, this is not intended as a "flame-bait" thread. This is intended as a "reach across the aisle" to try and expand understandings between seeming "warring" groups here on DU.

Full disclosure: I am a registered Independent. I remain an Independent because for personal reasons - because I refuse to declare loyalty to any one party or ideology. However, I always vote Democrat.

Personally, I'd love to see the Electoral College disappear. It was a really good compromise for it's time, but that time is long gone. The Electoral College was designed for a fragmented country when communications were so poor we didn't even have a Pony Express. Now that we have the capability, I would much rather see a Direct Election for President, with a run-off for anyone having less than 51% of the vote.

For example, let's talk about the 2000 Presidential Election. We all know that election was stolen. BUT, Gore still won the majority of the vote. But let's take this a step further - what about the 3rd party voters?

I have nothing against 3rd Party Voters. I would really love to see even more 3rd Party issues brought into the discussion. But, under the current system, when a 3rd Party Candidate enters the equation, instead of progressing their agenda they undermine it. Again, look at Gore v Bush. There were a lot of topics that were not being discussed by the 2 major parties but were only mentioned by the 3rd parties.

So, the net result was that people who voted for the Green Party only helped put people into power who did exactly the opposite.

If a run-off was allowed and Nader and other progressives were out of the picture, then Gore would have won over-whelming ly.

This is something we all need to consider. I really think we need to reform the Electoral college. Until that happens, I recommend still campaigning for the ideals you feel important. But when you get in the voting booth, think carefully about the implications of your vote. If you vote for someone who mirrors your beliefs but has no chance of winning - you're voting to lose. You are voting against yourself.

I wish that weren't true, but it is - (all Green Party trolls please pay attention)- you are voting against yourself and your beliefs.

Yeah, "integrity" is a great thing - until it kills you. A sad man dies for his integrity. He is remembered briefly, but b]he cannot affect change because he is not there to do it. A great man will compromise his integrity one day so he can be more effective at it the next day. This is the man that actually gets things done.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. 30 years of compromise, 17 of triangulation

and I'm not thinking that those strategies are good ones.

I think we need principles and integrity - or we keep moving the way we're moving.

[johnaries]

10. You don't have to give up your principles or integrity.

That's my point.

You can refuse to compromise your principles and integrity and never win -

Or you can make compromises and slowly advance towards your ultimate goal. I'd rather move closer to the ultimate goal rather than make no compromises at all and have people say "Oh, look at him! He refuses to compromise!"

To me, the latter is all about personal ego - not about advancing the "cause" - and in fact works against moving towards "the cause".

A lot of people claim to support a cause, but often they do it for personal reasons rather than for the cause, itself.

Sad, but it's human nature.

[MannyGoldstein]

18. But we've quickly advanced *away* from our ultimate goal

by doing what you're suggesting.

No?

[johnaries]

19. No. Although we have "advanced away", it's because we let

the "Supply-Siders" win because we were divided.

If all progressive groups had been allowed "to be heard" during the election - which had I can't argue against - but still voted for the Dem candidate, we wouldn't be in the mess are in today.

I don't mean this an an indictment against those who are "Left" of the Dem party - although in a way it is. I am Left of the Dem party. I would love for my vote to actually reflect my views. If we had direct elections with run-offs, then the far-Left would have a stronger voice. Because then the strongest Leftist candidate could see from an actual vote (as opposed to often-arbitrary polling. And then, whether they adjust their policies or not, we still get the most Progressive possible because the majority of people WANT to see "Progress".

But the way the current system is structured favors the group that is not "fractured" ideologically. that is obviously not what the framers intended, but they could not have imagined the system or situation we have today. If they knew what we now know, they would have written the Constitution differently.

Which, of course, is why they allowed for Amendments. Pretty smart guys.

[MannyGoldstein]

20. In practice, that doesn't work

Since 1992, the Democrats have used the the following strategy: Run as a Democrat them once in office...

- move far right, to within an inch of the Republicans
- give "the left" the finger

and say "who the fuck else ya gonna vote for, chumps!?"

Only way to stop it is to vote liars out of office. Preferably at primary time.

Otherwise we keep sliding into the abyss.

[griffi94]

22. or instead of slowly progressing

you can slowly, inch by inch, lose ground. compromising doesn't always mean just slowing down your rate of progress.

[BzaDem]

25. "or we keep moving the way we're moving"

This is what I don't get. People say "obviously what we're doing now isn't working." But then they say "so therefore we should do the opposite, and expect things to get better."

Why does ANYONE think that way? Just because doing X doesn't work doesn't mean doing the opposite of X will start working. In fact, in this case, doing the opposite of X will work EVEN LESS than doing X.

If you think "the way we're moving" is in the conservative direction, voting third party results us moving EVEN MORE in that direction. The Democratic party moves right to make up your lost vote, and Republicans take power in the meantime.

There is this idea that just because you want something means it is always possible to get said thing. This is one of the silliest assumptions I have ever seen. Most people learn the difference at age 5.

[MannyGoldstein]

27. I think we're half in agreement

At least I think that you agree that doing the same thing will lead to getting the same outcomes.

The issues I think that you have are:

1. Can things actually get better?
2. Does doing the opposite thing lead to opposite results?

We don't know if things will get better unless we try.

As to how to try - I'm not calling for the opposite because it's the opposite. I'm calling for the opposite because it's what has historically worked.

[BzaDem]

31. I don't understand. When has voting 3rd party instead of voting D actually produced better outcomes?

How has that historically "worked?"

"Can things actually get better?"

If we have more progressive Senators, then yes. Things are already much better than the Clinton administration (in terms of progressive policy) for this exact reason.

[MannyGoldstein]

32. Actually, it helped get FDR elected

The Communists were gaining ground, so the Democrats had to go left and nominate FDR.

As to things being better than Clinton - do you have an example? I'm not seeing it that way (and that's not a defense of Clinton).

[Suich]

2. I agree...good post!

The Electoral College is outdated. Chances of getting rid of it are slim, imo.

K&R!

:hi:

[JuniperLea]

3. Well done, johnaries!

You're a good man.

[Hissyspit]

4. "A sad man dies for his integrity. He is remembered briefly, but he cannot affect change because

he is not there to do it. A great man will compromise his integrity one day so he can be more effective at it the next day."

Well, that's nonsense. Yeah, I know. Life is full of tough choices and decisions and strategies, but that fails pretty thoroughly as an absolutist aphorism.

[jtuck004]

6. +1

[johnaries]

8. Yeah, I know it's not very "heroic"

it's along the same lines as a "strategic withdrawal", or "running away and living to fight another day". It's not very "romantic', but sometimes it's the wise choice.

[Hissyspit]

11. "Heroic" has nothing to do with it. It makes little sense.

It fails to recognize the "slippery slope." It fails to recognize that you can get fucked over when you compromise. It fails to acknowledge that the "sad man" might be setting off a course of behavior in others or chain of events that will result in the desired outcome.

And calling someone who stands up for their integrity despite not knowing the best "strategy" or the sure outcome a "sad man" is just ridiculous. I am ALWAYS suspicious of anyone who advises me to "choose my battles." They may indeed be right, oftentimes, but so many times in my life, people who have said that to me were really just self-serving worms.

[EFerrari]

12. Aka, "the ends justify the means".

[Fumesucker]

13. I think it's worse than that actually..

I think it's more like "the means justify the ends".

That's certainly the vibe I get from a lot of "moderate centrists" these days.

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. A+

[SidDithers]

5. Good post. K&R...nt

Sid

[Scurrilous]

7. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Fumesucker]

9. If Democratic politicians want Green party voters to vote for them..

Then they should embrace more Green positions, and not do it just with words but with actions.

Why do you lay the blame for what happens on the voters and not on the politicians?

Politics is the art of the compromise, if a politician wants someone's vote then they must give them a reason to vote for him, lean the compromise(s) toward the person whose vote they wish to get.

Voters are not politicians, voters should not compromise their ideals, they should vote for their ideals.

[johnaries]

14. I have nothing against the Green Party, and in fact I support

many of their positions and I wish they could have a greater voice in Election Issues.

However, under the current system (which I oppose), if you vote Green you might as well vote Republican.

So, to all Green supporters and all Green trolls I say - keep talking! But when you vote, vote where it counts. And right now, that means you may have to hold your nose and vote for the Dem candidate. Otherwise, you are helping the WORST candidate to win.

Hey, there are lots of jobs I have to do while holding my nose. But the job still has to be done.

[Fumesucker]

26. Again you put the onus on the voters..

If Democratic politicians want someone's vote then they need to give that person a reason for voting for them.

"The other guy is worse" is a stick, sticks only work so long without at least a smidgen of carrot, people eventually get tired of being beaten with the stick and just decide it's not worth bothering and tune out of politics altogether.

[Individualist]

15. See my sig line

[Yuugal]

16. Blah

Thank you for being polite at least(unlike many on your side). The bottom line for me though is there will always be those rich people and their supplicants in this country that want to throw 100 kids a day out of the window on the 40th floor of their ivory tower. They just like the sound of the thuds and even though they could buy audio equipment to simulate the sound why should they have to suffer with fake stuff right? They are rich afterall.

Then there are us "bleeding hearts" who insist on no kids being tossed out the window.

Then there are the triangulators. They come along and try to convince us that 50 kids a day is much better than 100 and no matter how hard us progressives try to explain to them how murder is murder and we won't have any part of it, they always insist we want a pony, we are absolutists , we are naive, blah blah blah.

I gave Obama money and time because I believed him when he said he was on our side. Turns out he wasn't. Heck, just today it comes out his crew wanted to cut food stamps so that asshole Arnie Dumbass could have more money to fuck up education even more with his bullshit privatized schools scam.

I'm tired of Obama and his recycled brand of DLC bullshit right out of Clinton's playbook. Clinton ran as a lib and governed as a neolib. He was a disaster for the party and of course he did very well for himself in it even though we lost congress for 14 years. We got workfare, nafta, repeal of Gla.....aw fuck it. I'm tired of explaining it over and over. We were had once again with Obama and enough is enough.

"If you vote for someone who mirrors your beliefs but has no chance of winning - you're voting to lose. You are voting against yourself. "

Not true. For thirty years I've voted straight dem and the working class has been decimated in that time with the rich holding a bigger share of wealth than ever before in my life. Fuck the rich, fuck their servants, fuck anyone who wants me to compromise with these evil fuckheads. NOT.GOING.TO.HAPPEN.


Dear Leader has made it abundantly clear he doesn't need or want us around and has sent his minions out to call us fucking retarded and to drive us off. He sold out the public option in a secret backroom deal with lobbyists breaking 3 promises at once. He bailed out the rich and let the working class eat cake. He is trying to ruin public education and wants to cut our SS instead of just raising the cap.....he even had the fucking nerve to appoint guys like Alan Simpson. Is that what you voted for? ALAN FUCKING SIMPSON?

There is no compromise on some issues and I'm really tired of the Junior Al From League on this site trying to browbeat everyone into accepting the idea that we can have just a little bit of sex and still somehow stay virgins. If you compromise on everything then you don't stand for a damn thing.

[Change has come]

17. You had me .

You really did. Until that "green party trolls" bit of flame bait. Try again won't you?

[Oregone]

21. The electoral college will always be a good idea with this type of a system

Winner takes all, on the other hand, may not be (EC should be awarded proportionally to state vote). Having a low amount of EC votes may not be (larger totals would eliminate rounding errors). But it most certainly does a good job of equalizing non-homogeneous voting systems to gage the will of the people.

Without the electoral college, political operatives would merely have to suppress voting in strongly liberal states by systematically attacking the voting infrastructure, which could easily swing an election (because considering the popular vote, its all about quantity of votes, rather than percentages). The EC can guess what a state may do if turnout wasn't suppressed

The way things are, with each state running their own system, popular vote is as important as the amount of freckles on my ass

My response focused on that. I didn't get to all the subtle insults yet.

[Luminous Animal]

23. Dear Democrats. 10-11 milion registered Democrats voted for Bush.

And why behold you the mote that is in your brother's eye, but consider not the beam that is in your own eye?

[Riftaxe]

24. Interesting topic

And it sounds like you have scratched the surface of how the electoral college came to being.

[Enrique]

29. maybe we should have some Pelosi-bots too

seeing as how there's an election coming up in Congress.

[mkultra]

30. It is unfortunate but true

It would be nice to just vote our beliefs. But its juvenile to think that works.

[spin]

33. Your chances of getting rid of the electorial college are slim ...

First, why do we have an Electoral College?

The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.

The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

***snip***

Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice. The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others.


The electoral college is also part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have representative in Congress, thus no state could have less then 3. The result of this system is that in this election the state of Wyoming cast about 210,000 votes, and thus each elector represented 70,000 votes, while in California approximately 9,700,000 votes were cast for 54 votes, thus representing 179,000 votes per electorate. Obviously this creates an unfair advantage to voters in the small states whose votes actually count more then those people living in medium and large states.

***snip***

While there are clear problems with the Electoral College and there are some advantages to it, changing it is very unlikely. It would take a constituitional amendment ratified by 3/4 of states to change the system. It is hard to imagine the smaller states agreeing. One way of modifying the system s to eliminate the winner take all part of it. The method that the states vote for the electoral college is not mandated by the consitution but is decided by the states. Two states do not use the winner take all system, Maine and Nebraska. It would be difficult but not impossible to get other states to change their systems, unfortunately the party that has the advantage in the state is unlikely to agree to a unilateral change. emphasis added
http://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

The founding fathers did an amazing of setting up a lasting government.

he United States Constitution is the oldest written constitution still in use by any nation in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.s._constitution

We should to be very hesitant to mess with the Constitution, but the means exist to change it.

Since most states with the largest populations vote primarily for Democrats, it might benefit our party to change the current system. However, it might conceivably lead to some of the smaller more conservative states deciding to secede from the union. There is already an interest in secession in 25 states. A move to eliminate the Electoral College would only add fuel to the smothering flames.

One might think the movement started in the South, but it did not; it is New Hampshire leading the pack. Apparently for the past few days this has been on talk radio, which shows how far television has to go to catch up apparently with the old-fashioned forms of communication. But the Internet, not to be outdone, has websites devoted to the cause of sovereignty, whom right-wing talk radio uses as justification for talk about secession.. Here is one about the State of New Hampshire with Bill HCR 6. It is apparently just one of a number of states that has decided it could break away from the Federal government.
These are some of the reasons cited by some of these states and their proposed legislation:

“I. Declaring Involuntary Martial Law over any of the 50 States
II. Any kind of "domestic Draft" (Obama's Service Corps)
III. Any kind of required service of Minors (Youth Brigades)
IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government. (UN Millenium Declaration, which Obama supports.
North American Union/SPP agreement.
UN Carbon Taxes)
V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press. (Fairness Doctrine)
VI. Any attempt to further restrict the the Right to Bear Arms

One website lists the States that are sovereign or are interested – Arizona, Georgia, Hawaii, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington. States planning/motioning toward claiming sovereignty are said to include: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Nevada, Pennsylvania, West Virginia.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/267681