IDemo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-18-11 04:09 PM
Original message |
Poll question: Question: Do you feel that electoral politics still offers any hope of solutions? |
|
Leave the lesser-of-two-evils talk aside for a moment. I'm not talking about voting versus not voting; voting Third party, or even working to overturn Citizens United and outlawing e-vote systems.
What I mean is, can we seriously expect to see measurable progress made on the biggest problems we face - economic collapse; environmental destruction; unending warfare; and the criminal collusion of governments and business that facilitate them, to be accomplished from within the framework of government? Leaving aside the "New boss, same as the old boss" thinking on Left vs. Right administrations, would any significant collection of non-partisan elected officials even have the power or motivation to put together the workable and affordable (even if on credit) solutions required?
|
Drale
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-18-11 04:13 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Yes but they need major changes |
|
First we need to get corporate money out of the races and 2nd we need to turn off the propaganda news.
|
glinda
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-18-11 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. I agree. There should be changes as you mention but biggest is actually getting rid of |
|
election rigging, followed by getting rid of Corp money. Followed by the media overhaul.
|
Posteritatis
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-18-11 04:21 PM
Response to Original message |
2. I'm hoping for the ratio of "electoral" to "politics" to shift a bit. (nt) |
white_wolf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-18-11 04:28 PM
Response to Original message |
3. I voted other and here is why: |
|
I think elections can fix a lot of our problems, but there are some conditions that MUST be met. 1st. We need election reform. We have to abolish our First-Past-The-Post system and replace it with a system of proportional representation or at the very least Instant Run Off, though I think proportional representation will be much better. 2. We must ban all private money from elections and have full public financing of all elections. 3. A third one that I think would help, but I'm not 100% sure on, I am 100% on the first 2, is change the senate to be based on population.
|
IDemo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-18-11 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
6. Agreed with most of that |
|
But how do we get to a point where private money can be banned from elections when Citizens United now seems in no danger of going away?
I've long felt that instant runoff voting is the only thing that can possibly up-end the two party apple cart. It doesn't seem to have much support, though.
|
white_wolf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-18-11 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. Just wondering, why do you favor Instant Run off over |
|
proportional representation? I'm not attacking, just curious since it seems to me Proportional is a more fair system since it tends to give voices to even minorities and allows them some small voice. Of course, either system is vastly superior to our current one.
|
IDemo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-18-11 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
10. I've got to admit, I'm not overly familiar with proportional representation |
|
It does appear that a large number of countries rely on it to one degree or another.
More to look into..
|
MilesColtrane
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-18-11 04:34 PM
Response to Original message |
|
If I didn't believe that, I certainly wouldn't see any reason for continuing to live here.
|
Ozymanithrax
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-18-11 04:46 PM
Response to Original message |
8. Yes, because I am not yet desperate enough to take up arms... |
|
in a struggle against the government, which seems to be the unmentioned alternative solution.
|
MedleyMisty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-18-11 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. Why do so many people assume that revolution has to be armed? |
|
The Tunisians and the Egyptians and the Syrians and the Bahrainis and the Yemenis didn't need/don't have arms. The Libyans do, but they were forced to it by the utter brutality of the Gaddafi regime.
And at least for the Tunisians and the Egyptians, peaceful resistance worked and, at least in Egypt (I really need to get informed on Tunisia) they are continuing to use it to fight the remnants of Mubarak's regime.
Are you just incapable of thinking of civil disobedience for some reason?
|
Ozymanithrax
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-18-11 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
11. In an unarmed revolution in Egypt, more than 600 people died, |
|
according to reports from Al Jazera.
In a nation of 300 million people, a lot of unarmed rebels will die.
I applaud anyone who wants to use methods that Gandhi and MLK used. But even if we manage, it won't be bloodless. The other side makes not promises about remaining unarmed, and the U.S. Military haas sworn to uphold the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Once we surrender to being hopeless, we open Pandora's box.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue May 07th 2024, 04:41 PM
Response to Original message |