15
   

The Bubble that is New England

 
 
dlowan
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 07:23 pm
@margo,
We have to register initially, too, Margo.

It was so long ago you've forgotten!

And you have to do it prior to election day.
dlowan
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 07:27 pm
@Thomas,
You need to learn "Manichean".

You'll need to use less words that way, and you may even feel cool.

Wink
George
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 08:23 pm
@dlowan,
Lop-Ears wrote:
You need to learn "Manichean".

I tried for a while, but those characters are hard.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 08:34 pm
@George,
Well, if you took your eyes off that damn ball, even for a moment, it would be a different story.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 09:21 pm
@margo,
margo wrote:

This is a good question, K.

As an outsider, we oftsn get funny views of Americans - glad to see I'm not alone.

One thing puzzled me:

Fishin said:
Quote:
When I pointed out that his Union is corrupt and his Union Rep. is probably on someone's political payroll he chuckled, shrugged and agreed - but he was going to vote for the Democrat anyway. If he wante d to stay in good standing with his Union he was pretty much forced to vote the way they told him to.


How the hell does the union know how anyone has voted. Don't you have secret ballots?


Sure! We have a secret ballot. But when you have 500 Union members living in one voting district and the "chosen" candidate only gets 200 votes total out of that district... well, the Union knows their members didn't vote they way they were "supposed" to vote. The Unions, just like many other organizations, study voting stats at various levels and they may or may not be able to track down the individuals but they can punish a local chapter which in turn punishes all of the individuals in that chapter. And of course, if another member overhears you talking about how you voted (or plan to vote) that info might just make it's way back too.
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 10:28 pm
Interesting thread, k.

In my experience, party loyalty is largely dependent on family tradition. Often it has little to do with the person running for office and I think, in New England, that is especially true, maybe due to the long lines of so many families. (They all claim that their ancestors came over with the Pilgrims--must have been a HUGE ship).

My ex mother-in-law was terribly upset when the levers that allowed automatic voting for one party for all the posts up for a vote. My family were democrats, but more in the Dixiecrat branch--rednecks and bigots and always voted for the Dem who just happened to be running for office, regardless of qualifications.

As for unions, yes, they are as corrupt as any other large organization. Just go back to check up on scandals from the American Red Cross to United Way. Movies have been made about New York union corruption. The movie On The Waterfront is a fine example. Is anyone still trying to find Jimmy Hoffa's body? One reason for the corruption, I imagine, is due to the fact that they have become so huge. Union leaders used to work right along with the other workers, now they work in upscale offices in New York skyscrapers.

The point is that voting decisions often aren't based on rational choice, anywhere in the States, for a number of different reasons.
littlek
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 10:39 pm
@Diane,
Is that what we want? Doesn't seem like good democracy. So, how do we change it?
margo
 
  5  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 11:13 pm
@dlowan,
Yes, I know we have to register (and registration is compulsory) but we don't have to register with or for a political party - a previous poster, perhaps p'dog, said he registered as a Democrat. We don't register for a particular party - or I'd be in strife. I usually vote for whoever's pissed me off least in the previous 12 months or so! (I'll have to rethink the state scene, now that just about everyone got thrown out yesterday! Politics! BaH!)

I struggle with the entire US political system.
dlowan
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 11:46 pm
@margo,
Ah..gotcha. That is the weirdest thing to us, I agree.

I asked about that in an old thread:

http://able2know.org/topic/46027-1


There is a discussion about it that begins here on the first page.....after Walter asks a question about it.


I know you CAN give links to individual posts in this brave new A2k, but I haven't figured out how to do it yet!
margo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2008 12:19 am
@dlowan,
Had a look at that - still struggle.

Asked Set to explain once - still struggle.

Local government elections here next Saturday. Who the hell to vote for - all seem grandstanding idiots - and one of thge biggest lives next door! Confused
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2008 01:00 am
@ossobuco,
Quote:
we tend to view political tendencies of a state that are expressed by a slim majority of registered voters (so, maybe a fifth to a quarter of the population) as representative of the state as a whole, and

it just ain't so."
Agreed;
California has gone both to the right and to the left.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2008 09:11 am
@margo,
Quote:
Yes, I know we have to register (and registration is compulsory) but we don't have to register with or for a political party - a previous poster, perhaps p'dog, said he registered as a Democrat. We don't register for a particular party - or I'd be in strife. I usually vote for whoever's pissed me off least in the previous 12 months or so! (I'll have to rethink the state scene, now that just about everyone got thrown out yesterday! Politics! BaH!)

I struggle with the entire US political system.


We don't have to register with a party, either, but in most (all?) states failure to do so means you don't vote for a presidential candidate in the presidential primaries. What I like about my state is that you can register day-of, so I can vote for anyone I like in the primaries.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2008 09:39 am
I have wavered over the decades, but remain essentially a liberal (per the current American definition). I am voting Democrat this time around. But, I've been so disenchanted with Democrats I may never vote the two major parties again, beginning this January. I reserve the right to make exceptions -
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2008 01:08 pm
@margo,
margo wrote:

Yes, I know we have to register (and registration is compulsory) but we don't have to register with or for a political party - a previous poster, perhaps p'dog, said he registered as a Democrat. We don't register for a particular party - or I'd be in strife. I usually vote for whoever's pissed me off least in the previous 12 months or so! (I'll have to rethink the state scene, now that just about everyone got thrown out yesterday! Politics! BaH!)

I struggle with the entire US political system.


The difference is due to your following the Westminster System and we don't.

You elect a Parliment and the PM is whomever can command leadership of the majority of that Parliment. In your case, you vote and the chips fall where they may. Whichever Party controls the Parliment controls the PMs office.

In our case we have no Parliment. We do have a similar House of Represenatives but the composition of that body doesn't determine who the head of state will be. The majority party of the House of Reps. and the party of the President can be (and often are) different.

In our case, the Political Parties decide amongst themselves (through Primary elections) who will be their appointed (or annoited if you prefer! Very Happy ) candidate for President. The rules for running the Primary elections vary from state to state but the traditional general rule of thumb is that by registering with a party you have the ability to participate in the decision making. (This has changed some in recent years with some states going to "Open Primaries" and such.). If you weren't registered with a Party then you weren't allowed to help decide who the Party's candidate would be (you could still vote in the egeneral elections however).

The practical effect is that the power/authority that your MPs hold to decide who will be the head of government is held by all of the individual party members here.
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  2  
Reply Tue 9 Sep, 2008 11:41 pm
@littlek,
Littlek having better media coverage, personal interviews with tough questions that are required to be answered, rather than evaded. Providing ideas and how those ideas can be implemented. If serious questions were asked more often, and honest answers could be pulled from the lips of politicians, I think more people would really think about their vote.

As for the fundamentalists. that will never change, but, thank heaven, there aren't so many of them to sway an election unless this country has really lost its mind.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 03:46 pm
@Diane,
Diane wrote:
Littlek having better media coverage, personal interviews with tough questions that are required to be answered, rather than evaded. Providing ideas and how those ideas can be implemented. If serious questions were asked more often, and honest answers could be pulled from the lips of politicians, I think more people would really think about their vote.

You think that's a realistic recipe for improvement? Whatever mushrooms you're eating over there in New Mexico, I want some.

I don't think there is a solution for the problem of ignorant voting.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/07/2022 at 12:43:44