Who Would You Like To See Win In 2008

[ThisYouWillDo]

Thorne says: Except over here [politicians] aren't necessarily "dumb."

Neither, I suppose, are ours: they're too conniving to be dumb. But we vote them in because there's no real alternative. Whoever governs or rules us will put their own interests first and their own beliefs over and above the rest of the country until we vote them out again.

In 2004, Bush won with a margin of 0.73% of the popular vote or by 3.16% of the electoral vote - I don't know what the difference signifies, but no matter. As voting is not compulsory in USA, there is likely to have been a significant number of abstainers. That means only a minority of Americans "spoke" in favour of Bush's election. The majority of people didn't want him - at least, they didn't want him enough to vote for him.

Skipping the 2000 election, where there is a suggestion of judicial interference, I note that, in 1996, Clinton obtained 49.23% of the popular vote (less than half the votes cast) but 70.45% of the electoral vote. I imagine that there were also quite a few abstainers in that year too, so, again, the President was voted in by a minority of the American People.

I expect the same could be said of almost all the other Presidents too. They are minority leaders, albeit the largest minority. British Prime Ministers are also consistently elected on the basis of a minority vote. In fact, for our local elections there's a real possibility that the non-voters will represent the majority one day. I look forward to seeing what will happen when that day comes.

Oh - as a fully paid-up member of the whinging middle classes, I'm perfectly happy for my taxes to pay for people who cannot work to live above subsistence level, and to pay the costs of providing other social services too, such as medical and hospital charges, just as I would appreciate those things myself if I became sick or unable to work for any reason. You see, I believe we have a duty to care for everyone, even the disadvantaged. That's what belonging to a civil society means. OK, I don't like being ripped off by malingerers, but they're a small problem compared to politicians who sign over millions of dollars to finance some terrorists' activities, and then spend billions more trying to eradicate the same people when the weapons they paid for are turned back on them. I don't think right thinking people would support and maintain corrupt regimes in other countries given the choice and would withhold that portion of their taxes if they could.



Mkemse says: ... if you decide not to vote, not to excersie your Constitutional Right and Moral Obligation as an American Citizen do not complain about who won since you did not express any intrest one way or the other

To my mind, that's poppycock! As a citizen of the United Kingdom, I have exercised MY right not to vote in every UK election bar 2 since I reached voting age in 1978; I don't want self-serving incompetents to represent me. If I were obliged by law to vote, I would purposely spoil my ballot paper rather than cast a vote. That does not mean to say that I have no right to criticise our Parliamentarians for doing a lousy job. In fact, it frees me to criticise them just as much as I like. If I had voted for them, I should have to justify my foolish actions.

I don't vote because I believe the candidates would do a lousy job (they would follow their party leader and do as they were told rather than represent my interests). I am not going to validate any one of them with my vote, nor am I going to endorse the system that perpetuates this kind of nonsense by participating in it. I'm sure my attitude would be the same if I were a US citizen.

I also have a right to citicise foreign leaders, as do Americans. Yet we do not vote for or against them. I don't like Putin, for example, and I consider him a dangerous and treacherous man - typical politician, in other words. But the Russians love him (for now) and I have no say whether he rules Russia or not.

So, if you do vote, you have a lot of explaining to do when the person you support cocks up and ruins the economy, fails to respond to a national emergency, takes his country into an unpopular war, runs away with half the national treasures or does something else equally disasterous.


(I find Mkmse's last paragraph very interesting. The American People "spoke" by giving control to the Democrats in both Houses of Congress, yet the Democrats are still unable to impose their will because they cannot override a veto. You might have a 50 mpg car parked outside your house, filled to the brim with petrol. But if someone takes away your keys, you can't drive it.)

TYWD

[mkemse]

Thorne says: Except over here [politicians] aren't necessarily "dumb."

Neither, I suppose, are ours: they're too conniving to be dumb. But we vote them in because there's no real alternative. Whoever governs or rules us will put their own interests first and their own beliefs over and above the rest of the country until we vote them out again.

In 2004, Bush won with a margin of 0.73% of the popular vote or by 3.16% of the electoral vote - I don't know what the difference signifies, but no matter. As voting is not compulsory in USA, there is likely to have been a significant number of abstainers. That means only a minority of Americans "spoke" in favour of Bush's election. The majority of people didn't want him - at least, they didn't want him enough to vote for him.

Skipping the 2000 election, where there is a suggestion of judicial interference, I note that, in 1996, Clinton obtained 49.23% of the popular vote (less than half the votes cast) but 70.45% of the electoral vote. I imagine that there were also quite a few abstainers in that year too, so, again, the President was voted in by a minority of the American People.

I expect the same could be said of almost all the other Presidents too. They are minority leaders, albeit the largest minority. British Prime Ministers are also consistently elected on the basis of a minority vote. In fact, for our local elections there's a real possibility that the non-voters will represent the majority one day. I look forward to seeing what will happen when that day comes.

Mkemse says: ... if you decide not to vote, not to excersie your Constitutional Right and Moral Obligation as an American Citizen do not complain about who won since you did not express any intrest one way or the other

To my mind, that's poppycock! As a citizen of the United Kingdom, I have exercised MY right not to vote in every UK election bar 2 since I reached voting age in 1978; I don't want self-serving incompetents to represent me. If I were obliged by law to vote, I would purposely spoil my ballot paper rather than cast a vote. That does not mean to say that I have no right to criticise our Parliamentarians for doing a lousy job. In fact, it frees me to criticise them just as much as I like. If I had voted for them, I should have to justify my foolish actions.

I don't vote because I believe the candidates would do a lousy job (they would follow their party leader and do as they were told rather than represent my interests). I am not going to validate any one of them with my vote, nor am I going to endorse the system that perpetuates this kind of nonsense by participating in it. I'm sure my attitude would be the same if I were a US citizen.

I also have a right to citicise foreign leaders, as do Americans. Yet we do not vote for or against them. I don't like Putin, for example, and I consider him a dangerous and treacherous man - typical politician, in other words. But the Russians love him (for now) and I have no say whether he rules Russia or not.

So, if you do vote, you have a lot of explaining to do when the person you support cocks up and ruins the economy, fails to respond to a national emergency, takes his country into an unpopular war, runs away with half the national treasures or does something else equally disasterous.


(I find Mkmse's last paragraph very interesting. The American People "spoke" by giving control to the Democrats in both Houses of Congress, yet the Democrats are still unable to impose their will because they cannot override a veto. You might have a 50 mpg car parked outside your house, filled to the brim with petrol. But if someone takes away your keys, you can't drive it.)

TYWD

No Buch never got anywhere near 51% of the vote in either election, but as far as 2004 goes, even with his small margin of victory, my understandingis the primary reason he even won in 2004 is that in the History of the US, NO President, No Incumbent has ever been voted out of office when were were at War, whether they initiated it or not
I would appriciate someone varifying this as being correct or incorrect

[Mad Lews]

No Buch never got anywhere near 51% of the vote in either election, but as far as 2004 goes, even with his small margin of victory, my understandingis the primary reason he even won in 2004 is that in the History of the US, NO President, No Incumbent has ever been voted out of office when were were at War, whether they initiated it or not
I would appriciate someone varifying this as being correct or incorrect

Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968 comes to mind. His reelection bid collapsed by March of '68 so he withdrew and allowed the Dems to chose Hubert Humphrey. George Wallace also ran and probably siphoned off some democratic votes (the old south was solidly democratic then still blaming the republicans for Lincoln and the defeat of the confederacy.) Nixon won a electoral college landslide 301 to 191 with Wallace getting 46. The popular vote was closer 43.4% to 42.8% with Wallace at just under 14%

[mkemse]

Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968 comes to mind. His reelection bid collapsed by March of '68 so he withdrew and allowed the Dems to chose Hubert Humphrey. George Wallace also ran and probably siphoned off some democratic votes (the old south was solidly democratic then still blaming the republicans for Lincoln and the defeat of the confederacy.) Nixon won a electoral college landslide 301 to 191 with Wallace getting 46. The popular vote was closer 43.4% to 42.8% with Wallace at just under 14%

What I meant to say if any Incubent that actualy ran, always won, I know about johnson, but my reference was towards any incumbent that was actualy in the general election, Johnson choose to to run again thus with Humphrey runnig Humphry would not have been the actauly incumbent since he never served as President only VP