an Atheist's issues with politics

[HK]

That's the attitude that perpetuates the issue with other parties being perceived as not viable. If you decide not to vote for them because it's throwing your vote away, then you just continue the cycle. It's not about voting for who you think is the lesser of two evils, but about who you feel is the best qualified to do the job as you believe it should be done. Call me an idealist if you like, but that's how I see the issue. You're only throwing your vote away if you view it like that. If you don't, then you're sending a statement that you don't like the candidates that were presented by the two major parties, and if enough people actually stand up and vote their convictions, then perhaps it can affect a change.

It's difficult though - I do understand that of course if we all voted for the parties that made the most sense rather than the big runners, maybe things would change. But when you know that voting for a smaller party in an upcoming election will amount to absolutely nothing, it's hard to think it's worth it.

I still vote, and generally I vote for one of the main contenders because I've always found one that agrees with my ideals. But I understand why some people might think if they don't agree with any of them, what's the point? The majority will vote for them, and that's not likely to change anytime soon.

 

[retro]

It's difficult though - I do understand that of course if we all voted for the parties that made the most sense rather than the big runners, maybe things would change. But when you know that voting for a smaller party in an upcoming election will amount to absolutely nothing, it's hard to think it's worth it.

I still vote, and generally I vote for one of the main contenders because I've always found one that agrees with my ideals. But I understand why some people might think if they don't agree with any of them, what's the point? The majority will vote for them, and that's not likely to change anytime soon.

But that's the thing. If it brings about a change, even a small one, then it is worth it. The more people that start voting their conscience rather than the lesser of two evils, the most chance there is for people to realize that there actually is a point in it.

 

[FreightTrain]

Some animals have the ability to naturally abort a fetus depending on conditions when they concieve ie whether they got enough to eat during a winter or not. Just because women can't do it naturally means they shouldn't? The skill and medical advance is there I say use it.

And some animals can delay growth of a fetus in a womb up to a year for the same reasons. Animals have better family-planning skills than most people, proving again that humans are NOT superior.

 

[HK]

But that's the thing. If it brings about a change, even a small one, then it is worth it. The more people that start voting their conscience rather than the lesser of two evils, the most chance there is for people to realize that there actually is a point in it.

Ah but the problem with that is, some people think of it as 'lesser of two evils' whereas a lot of people genuinely want to vote for one party over the others, even the small ones. It's not like the entire country, yours or mine, is secretly hating all the major candidates and wishes it were worth voting for someone else, and if only they all realised we all feel the same so we could join forces and change the system.

It'd be interesting to see though, some sort of poll on who people would put in charge if they could pick anyone off the list, major or minor candidates included. Whether the majority would still be with the major candidates or not.

 

[retro]

Ah but the problem with that is, some people think of it as 'lesser of two evils' whereas a lot of people genuinely want to vote for one party over the others, even the small ones. It's not like the entire country, yours or mine, is secretly hating all the major candidates and wishes it were worth voting for someone else, and if only they all realised we all feel the same so we could join forces and change the system.

It'd be interesting to see though, some sort of poll on who people would put in charge if they could pick anyone off the list, major or minor candidates included. Whether the majority would still be with the major candidates or not.

I honestly think that if people were given a description of a candidates beliefs, ideals, and stances on issues without names or political parties... we'd see a lot of people that would be more apt to vote for a 3rd party than most of us realize. I know that there are people like my parents, sister, brother, and sister-in-law that simply vote for everyone with an (R) next to their name.

 

[HK]

I honestly think that if people were given a description of a candidates beliefs, ideals, and stances on issues without names or political parties... we'd see a lot of people that would be more apt to vote for a 3rd party than most of us realize. I know that there are people like my parents, sister, brother, and sister-in-law that simply vote for everyone with an (R) next to their name.

See that's a big problem with voting at the moment really, the big contenders have the money and the influence to reach people that the smaller options don't.

That and I'm convinced some people just vote for whoever they find a 'nicer person'. I'm sure this is why a lot of people voted for David Cameron - he's got charisma, and Gordon Brown didn't. Loads of people don't care enough to educate themselves on policies and so on, they just pick the person they feel fits the role, or who does better on chat shows, or who The Sun tells them to vote for.

(I'm not saying he shouldn't have won, I just mean maybe these things would go differently if it weren't a little bit about on-screen personality).

 

[retro]

The money issue is one that I think needs to go away. I've become a proponent of publicly funded elections, that way the major parties can't just fight to out-spend each other and bury the smaller party candidates. We saw that here in California in the last election between Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown. They both spent an absurd amount of money on flyers, television and radio commercials, and God only knows what else. Whitman spent more than Brown did by a large margin, mostly because she felt that she had to put her name and stances out there to try and change the minds of a largely liberal and Democrat run state. But it was still a crazy amount of money that was spent. That was one of the few elections where I actually voted for one of the major candidates... because while I didn't think Whitman was the perfect candidate, she fit my beliefs better than anyone else did, including the Libertarian.

 

[retro]

http://www.soundbytepolitics.com/forum/content.php/139-Rethinking-Politics

 

[Accountable]

I vote on local issues, its presidential elections that I have no intent on voting on.
If I disagree with both sides why vote? I don't see the point of playing a game that can't be won

:homo:

Voting for votings sakes makes a bit of a mockery out of democracy.

But then, voting for the losing side makes a mockery out of yourself :surrender

The game can't be won because the people who aren't currently winning have stopped playing. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. So many people believe that the only choices are between a piece of shit and a turd that no one even looks beyond the toilet, I mean the Party. If everyone would vote for who they really believe would be best for the job, rather than who they think has the best chance to win, then maybe the best person for the job might win for a change.

 

[Accountable]

"Scientifically speaking, a fetus is not a person"?? There's a scientific definition for Person? What is a person, scientifically speaking?

Not a fetus.

That's a nice not-an-answer.

That's about the most direct answer ever because I bet I know where you're trying to go with this. Probably the 'who are you to say what is and is not considered a person' point, right? It's irrelevant because this is not a theocracy country and laws should not be based around religious teachings.

How very prejudicial of you. You got all that out of my one little post? You should practice making snap judgments more often, so that you won't suck at it so badly.

Wyndex probably could have told you that it was a rhetorical question, just poking fun, since 'person' isn't a scientific term (though I'll happily accept evidence to the contrary). It's pretty cute, though, how you took that all the way from there to accusing me of calling for a theocracy. It shows a lot of imagination.

 

[Pet Sounds]

Scientifically speaking, a fetus is not a person,

Scientifically speaking, a fetus is a human organism. Human developmental biology starts at conception. Organism=life. Biology is the study of life/study of organisms.

Human development is the process of growing to maturity. In biological terms, this entails growth from a one-celled zygote to an adult human being.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_development_(biology)

 

[Accountable]

Scientifically speaking, a fetus is a human organism. Human developmental biology starts at conception. Organism=life. Biology is the study of life/study of organisms.

Right. A scientist probably wouldn't consider you a person until his girlfriend introduced you at the company Christmas party.

 

[Alien Allen]

I voted for Perot......... same with Ron Paul

I have no issues looking back at doing that

I do not think they were wasted votes

Until people vote their conscience instead of based on other crap it will never change.

 

[Accountable]

I voted for Perot......... same with Ron Paul

I have no issues looking back at doing that

I do not think they were wasted votes

Until people vote their conscience instead of based on other crap it will never change.

:homo:

 

[brieze]

How very prejudicial of you. You got all that out of my one little post? You should practice making snap judgments more often, so that you won't suck at it so badly.

Wyndex probably could have told you that it was a rhetorical question, just poking fun, since 'person' isn't a scientific term (though I'll happily accept evidence to the contrary). It's pretty cute, though, how you took that all the way from there to accusing me of calling for a theocracy. It shows a lot of imagination.

Okay lol.

 

[itsmeJonB]

A third party vote is an option I will keep in mind come next election BUT my stance on how religion has swayed both sides still stands, and its still going to bother me until someones belief in god isn't an issue in an election

 

[Panacea]

A third party vote is an option I will keep in mind come next election BUT my stance on how religion has swayed both sides still stands, and its still going to bother me until someones belief in god isn't an issue in an election

A vote for a third party is a vote for Republicans, in honesty, as conservatives are less likely to vote independent. It sucks, but religion is going to play a part in policy and platform for many years to come. The US is very slow to adopt secular politics, as evidenced by the Tea Party movement.

 

[Tim]

I voted for Perot......... same with Ron Paul

I have no issues looking back at doing that

I do not think they were wasted votes

Until people vote their conscience instead of based on other crap it will never change.

Here's the problem... you put too much faith in the populous. For the most part, voters are idiots who don't pay attention to elections and base their decisions on 10 second sound bytes.
You won't ever get a third party going until you get the voters interested in the primaries. Just take a look at how many people vote in the primaries, that's all the evidence you need.

It's easy to have this conversation between us political wonks. But try having this conversation with the general public and their eyes will glass over and they will end up voting party line just like they did the year before.

And I voted for Perot as well, I really wanted him to come in and shake up the country. :nod:

 

[Alien Allen]

Here's the problem... you put too much faith in the populous. For the most part, voters are idiots who don't pay attention to elections and base their decisions on 10 second sound bytes.
You won't ever get a third party going until you get the voters interested in the primaries. Just take a look at how many people vote in the primaries, that's all the evidence you need.

It's easy to have this conversation between us political wonks. But try having this conversation with the general public and their eyes will glass over and they will end up voting party line just like they did the year before.

And I voted for Perot as well, I really wanted him to come in and shake up the country. :nod:

well you can only melt an iceberg on drip at a time

I get your points but as long as we vote against somebody versus for somebody we are doomed to repeat the same over and over again.

Also it is bullshit that when there is an attempt to do something different that they get ridiculed like the Tea Party has.