Is the EU attempting to circumvent democracy?

We DO have a choice... at least here in the US. It doesn't SEEM like a choice, but it is. Vote third party, chances are you agree with a third party because the only thing they have going for them IS their platform. The more people that vote for the third party, the greater the display of outrage and lack of confidence we present.

Also... you can finance an election campaign considerably well without big corporations IF you have grassroots support and a passionate base (see Ron Paul's 2008 and 2012 campaigns.) One brought in 35 million dollars, and the second one (as of Q3) is already ahead of where it was 4 years ago.

If you think that your only choice IS a lesser of the two evils, then you're playing right into their hands and accomplishing absolutely nothing. Don't settle.

Our options

Obey the Plutocracy
Vote 3rd party
Revolution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmind

^ I bet this person voted for Obama.

---

Better than dick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

Better than dick.

---

I think you mean douche. And I guess Obama is the turd, seeing as though he was the brown one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmind

^ I bet this person voted for Obama.

---

Why wouldn't I have? The choices were Obama, or McCain, would you rather I voted for McCain? Also the important issues at the time were the war in Iraq and Health Insurance. Obama wanted to end the war and give poor people health insurance, McCain wanted to maintain the war and further privatize health insurance. A vote for a third party is removing a vote against McCain. You can never get someone who you like on everything, Obama should be impeached for bailing out white collar criminals, but still better than what McCain would have done.

I don't buy this whole 'the media have a stranglehold on the public' thing at all. Not for one moment. The (general election) campaign budget in the UK is capped at £20 million; compare that to Obama's which is supposed to be around $1 billion. Yet the voter turnout is almost exactly the same (around 60%).

It seems to me that anybody making these kinds of claims are basically being extremely dismissive of the entire population of the US and their ability to vote rationally, which is among other things rather arrogant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Why wouldn't I have? The choices were Obama, or McCain, would you rather I voted for McCain? Also the important issues at the time were the war in Iraq and Health Insurance. Obama wanted to end the war and give poor people health insurance, McCain wanted to maintain the war and further privatize health insurance. A vote for a third party is removing a vote against McCain. You can never get someone who you like on everything, Obama should be impeached for bailing out white collar criminals, but still better than what McCain would have done.

---

- Complain about the media enforced dichotomy
- Vote for one of the two main candidates

Sorry ninja but this just doesn't make any coherent sense. You're claiming it's impossible to break out of the loop and vote for any decent candidates, and then you use this as a reason to not break out of the loop and vote for any decent candidates.

Isn't this exactly what everybody else you're complaining about is doing too??

"We would vote for someone without corporate ties if we could, we only have the option of the lesser of two evils."

We only have the option of two evils because we have to vote for the lesser of two evils because we only have the option of two evils. God this is so silly. It just sounds like excuses to me.

Voting has been compromised because people in the US have bought into false ideas

1. All politicians are worthless liars anyways (this means most Americans vote on candidates based on personality rather than policy)
2. THOSE GUYS are way worse than our guys (fear polarizes them to one respective side of a multifaceted debate)
3. Third Party Candidates can't win (Only americans that vote for 3rd party candidates are the ones that believe the system is broken, anyone else is too busy supporting the lesser evil)

But if people are determined to be stupid, what can you do other than educate them? They're still legitimate voters; you can't say they can't vote because you think they're wrong. What's your solution?

Having a revolution makes no sense; if the majority of the population wanted a revolution, why not skip the marches and simply vote a new party in?

Because it takes millions of dollars to run for office. The last relatively successful 3rd party candidate was ross perot and he had his own money. When was the last time you saw 3 candidates debate in the general election? They wouldn't even let Nader in.

The majority of the country is revolting but they need an ad campaign to tell them who to vote for? Again with the patronisation of the public.

I'm still waiting for your solution, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

- Complain about the media enforced dichotomy
- Vote for one of the two main candidates

Sorry ninja but this just doesn't make any coherent sense. You're claiming it's impossible to break out of the loop and vote for any decent candidates, and then you use this as a reason to not break out of the loop and vote for any decent candidates.

Isn't this exactly what everybody else you're complaining about is doing too??

"We would vote for someone without corporate ties if we could, we only have the option of the lesser of two evils."

We only have the option of two evils because we have to vote for the lesser of two evils because we only have the option of two evils. God this is so silly. It just sounds like excuses to me.

---

Uh... no. I am complaining that the corporate giants are ALLOWED to do that. Bribing senators should be illegal. The "vote the way we want you to, or we won't fund your next campaign" control of the financial giants is the problem, not that the people support it. The people do not support this system, but the people aren't in charge. That's literally what #OWS is about :P

OWS doesn't HAVE one message, it's just general discontent about the status quo. The status of our wealth, our power, our politicians, our government, etc.

It's not hard to replace candidates if you can convince a majority of people to vote for a 3rd party. The problem there is "majority" (which is the main problem with democracy in general.) Out the incumbents with a third party candidate!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

The majority of the country is revolting but they need an ad campaign to tell them who to vote for? Again with the patronisation of the public.

I'm still waiting for your solution, of course.

---

Without a campaign, they're nothing more than a name on a list. People can research on who they most agree with and guess what, they do. That's why around 2% of the votes are split up among the various 3rd party candidates. But without a campaign, we can't organize behind a candidate and pull a majority vote. Without a campaign, no one will have heard of them. Even with a campaign, if they can't get into the debates they don't stand a chance. You can come up with as many excuses as you want but the plutocrats are playing the game the way it works. They know how people make decisions and they know over all people do not make very rational decisions. They also know most people would prefer to be told who to vote for rather than actually do some research.

Besides, you have no idea how pessimistic americans are about politicians. Most of them don't trust what the candidate says at all, so they go off stupid things like what kind of shoes the guy wears and other unconscious factors.

And the way the game looks to them, there are only two choices anyways. How often do primaries for the green party get on TV? The republican party has had like 10 debates already.

We can't trust politicians to do what they say, and we can't trust Americans to inform themselves. What's the solution to that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Besides, you have no idea how pessimistic americans are about politicians. Most of them don't trust what the candidate says at all, so they go off stupid things like what kind of shoes the guy wears and other unconscious factors.

---

I just read 2 days ago that the candidate with a deeper voice almost always wins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

We can't trust politicians to do what they say, and we can't trust Americans to inform themselves. What's the solution to that?

---

A virus which selectively targets and kills lying politicians and idiots.

Well... as long as the people have their bread and circuses (and a little bit of fear) they tend to stay subdued... for the most part. There are always the rebels, and we either get ignored, downplayed, or destroyed... but occasionally we make a difference!

The solution is to elect a 3rd party candidate but you can't pretend this is an easy thing to do. It would require a grassroots effort not seen since the civil rights and conviction not seen since WW2. Besides, if it's a diebold voting machine it may change their vote anyway. I don't trust Diebold, they've had too many whistle-blowers from inside the company claim they fix the results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

The solution is to elect a 3rd party candidate but you can't pretend this is an easy thing to do. It would require a grassroots effort not seen since the civil rights and conviction not seen since WW2. Besides, if it's a diebold voting machine it may change their vote anyway. I don't trust Diebold, they've had too many whistle-blowers from inside the company claim they fix the results.

---

Well then, what are we waiting for? I'm already campaigning for a couple candidates (while they aren't technically third-party, they use the GOP as a medium for getting elected.) but I can't do it alone! Even getting part of the vote will make a point that people are upset.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Well then, what are we waiting for? I'm already campaigning for a couple candidates (while they aren't technically third-party, they use the GOP as a medium for getting elected.) but I can't do it alone! Even getting part of the vote will make a point that people are upset.

---

If Ron Paul ran 3rd party sure, but he can't win a republican primary. Republicans love war too much. I'm assuming the other you're talking about is gary johnson, and they won't even acknowledge he's running. But it brings up an important point. If Gary Johnson can't even get into the primary debates, how can a third party candidate get into the general debates? They'll exclude them and minimize them like always and by the time election rolls around no one will have heard about them. That's why I thought Ron Paul had a good idea in 07 running for the GOP just to get his name out but I don't see why he doesn't go independent in the general. He'd take more votes from the dems than republicans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Without a campaign, they're nothing more than a name on a list. People can research on who they most agree with and guess what, they do. That's why around 2% of the votes are split up among the various 3rd party candidates. But without a campaign, we can't organize behind a candidate and pull a majority vote. Without a campaign, no one will have heard of them. Even with a campaign, if they can't get into the debates they don't stand a chance. You can come up with as many excuses as you want but the plutocrats are playing the game the way it works. They know how people make decisions and they know over all people do not make very rational decisions. They also know most people would prefer to be told who to vote for rather than actually do some research.

---

I just provided you with the statistics that showed that in a country with campaign budgets that is tiny by comparison, there is the same voter turnout. Which disproves the contention that the only way to make people vote is to throw a billion dollars at them.

I'm still waiting to here what you're going to do about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Uh... no. I am complaining that the corporate giants are ALLOWED to do that.

---

No you weren't, you were saying this:

"We would vote for someone without corporate ties if we could, we only have the option of the lesser of two evils."

The way you get rid of corporate ties from government is you vote for a candidate who promises to get rid of corporate ties. But you don't. You keep voting for your favourite guy with corporate ties and no intention to get rid of the system. And this makes no sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

If Ron Paul ran 3rd party sure, but he can't win a republican primary. Republicans love war too much. I'm assuming the other you're talking about is gary johnson, and they won't even acknowledge he's running. But it brings up an important point. If Gary Johnson can't even get into the primary debates, how can a third party candidate get into the general debates? They'll exclude them and minimize them like always and by the time election rolls around no one will have heard about them. That's why I thought Ron Paul had a good idea in 07 running for the GOP just to get his name out but I don't see why he doesn't go independent in the general. He'd take more votes from the dems than republicans

---

Despite the unfortunate state of politics today, I refuse to settle. There's a good chance that Ron Paul or Gary Johnson will appear on the ballot in all 50 plus DC, and that would at least make a point; we're not happy with the state of things. I'd love to see how many people would vote Paul if he were on the ballot... (plus his campaign is great at fundraising without big corporations, compared to other "grassroots" campaigns.)

But again; I refuse to settle. Liberty or bust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I just provided you with the statistics that showed that in a country with campaign budgets that is tiny by comparison, there is the same voter turnout. Which disproves the contention that the only way to make people vote is to throw a billion dollars at them.

I'm still waiting to here what you're going to do about it.

---

Maybe if you read the entire thread you'd see my solution is a 3rd party candidate but my point is you're acting like that's somehow easy.

And by the way, compare this post of yours to the music industry debate. First turn on your cognitive dissonance. You're saying in countries where there isn't massive campaign budgets, there's just as many voters. Campaign Budgets are publicity. Publicity helps ensure the voters out there vote for you. We need bigger and bigger campaigns because our candidates get drowned out by the major parties. Just as in the music industry, it's not that you can't vote for a 3rd party candidate but you can almost be assured they have no chance at getting the majority.

how many obama voters, dont actually support him but 'just want to keep mccain out", and how many voted for mccain, 'just to keep obama out'

Likewise in the UK, people will often vote for one of the main 3, just to keep the others out, when they are carbon copies of one and other bar some minor issues. I've only ever supported a party because I support their policies, regardless of how large they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Maybe if you read the entire thread you'd see my solution is a 3rd party candidate but my point is you're acting like that's somehow easy.

And by the way, compare this post of yours to the music industry debate. First turn on your cognitive dissonance. You're saying in countries where there isn't massive campaign budgets, there's just as many voters. Campaign Budgets are publicity. Publicity helps ensure the voters out there vote for you. We need bigger and bigger campaigns because our candidates get drowned out by the major parties. Just as in the music industry, it's not that you can't vote for a 3rd party candidate but you can almost be assured they have no chance at getting the majority.

---

Ha, very good point. Tied together nicely. Well done, good sir.