Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

How I think campaigns should workFollow

#27 Sep 19 2008 at 7:15 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
If you're in a country that doesn't have such a strong bipartisan divide as the US, start your own party campaigning on the issues that matter to you.
Personally, I think that's half of the US's problems. With only 2 parties, so polar from each other, people in the middle ground are forced to pick one evil over another. If any where can use a 3rd legitimate party, it's the US. IMO.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#28 Sep 19 2008 at 7:24 AM Rating: Good
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Personally, I think that's half of the US's problems. With only 2 parties, so polar from each other, people in the middle ground are forced to pick one evil over another. If any where can use a 3rd legitimate party, it's the US. IMO.


I agree. I think it's much healthier to have more than just 2 parties.

Though I'm sure you could argue that the Primaries serve as a sort of "filter" to similar but different political views. So if you're green, socialist, and hard-left, you can campaign on this plateform as a Dem during the primaries, and hope you get through. Similarly, if you're a fascist creationist who wants to turn the US into a theocracy, you can campaign like this at the primary of the Reps. Of course, you'd never win an election by being too far on the political spectrum, since elections are often decided by the floating centrist voters, but technically you could try, and technically it would almost like being in another party within a coalition.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#29 Sep 19 2008 at 7:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Yeah, clearly we'd be better served by a multi-party system; but the current system is so entrenched that without a major, and I mean huge, schism to break the two parties into four I just don't see it changing.

No one on either side is going to be the first to give up any power voluntarily.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#30 Sep 19 2008 at 7:58 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Samira wrote:
Yeah, clearly we'd be better served by a multi-party system; but the current system is so entrenched that without a major, and I mean huge, schism to break the two parties into four I just don't see it changing.

No one on either side is going to be the first to give up any power voluntarily.

Technically, we're a mutli-party country, but the 3rd, 4th, 5th, nth choices are just to steal votes from one of the 2 main parties. It'll be a long time before any party other than Conservative or Liberal run this country. However, with minority governments, the minor parties can still influence things.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#31 Sep 19 2008 at 8:22 AM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
Seriously, if they're all so sh*t and useless and lying scumbags, become one. It's not that hard, join a party, start campaigning, run for local seats, climb your way up. If you're in a country that doesn't have such a strong bipartisan divide as the US, start your own party campaigning on the issues that matter to you.
I spoke to a friend of a friend a couple of years back who was trying to become a local councillor for the labour party, he was told that his habit of answering questions made him unactractive as a prospective candidate for the position.

i doubt any other party would take a different line.
#32 Sep 19 2008 at 8:24 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Baron von tarv wrote:
his habit of answering questions made him unactractive as a prospective candidate for the position.
Smiley: lol Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#33 Sep 19 2008 at 8:41 AM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
To be fair he is a little blunt, but the way he was putting it they wanted him to avoid answering any questions on policy directly unless it was of a specified list of rote answers.

He said no, I'm a candidate how can they choose me if they don't know what i believe in? they said that wasn't the way it worked and picked someone who was willing to toe the line, and they lost.

#34 Sep 19 2008 at 8:43 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Which is actually pretty pathetic. If I wasn't sold already on who I'm voting for, 6 weeks would not be long enough for me to actually see what each group thinks is the correct course of action to take on various issues. 6 weeks is enough time for them to tell you what they want to promise and that's about it. No how to get there though.


It's plenty of time. How long does it take to read a brochure, a website, and watch a debate?

Each groups stance on issues shouldn't change simply because there's an election. They have existing policies, all that's required is to communicate them to the public so the public can decide who's policies they prefer. The short time period keeps things a bit more honest. There's little time to change your "official" positions due to changes in polls because there's little time for trends to be tracked.

This way the parties actual values are more transparent, as opposed to an image of the party that is created based on the reaction of the general public over a period of time. It's also a lot cheaper.
#35REDACTED, Posted: Sep 19 2008 at 8:43 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I think my sarcasm covered up my point. It shouldn't matter who is running for president, certain laws should not even be considered if they are unconstitutional. This is usually left to our supreme court justices to decide, but they are selected by the person they are supposed to be keeping in check. And they are not up for election or dismissal, they stay until they want to retire. Not to mention, being a supreme court justice does not pay as well as other lawyering positions. If someone is interested in a job that pays less than they are qualified to make, I'd hate to think of the reasons someone would desire such a position.
#36 Sep 19 2008 at 8:48 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
It's plenty of time. How long does it take to read a brochure, a website, and watch a debate?
I disagree. One debate is not long enough for 5 speakers to properly discuss their views on issues. I can read the websites/brochures, but it doesn't allow for any questions to be answered and only having one debate, or lack of time for more discussions of any sort, doesn't allow for one to get a complete understanding of a party's view. I can guarantee you that very few people will fully understand the Liberal Party's Green Shift policy come election day.

Edited, Sep 19th 2008 1:45pm by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#37 Sep 19 2008 at 8:50 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
I can guarantee you that very few people will fully understand the Liberal Party's Green Shift policy come election day.


Those same people wouldn't understand it if it went on for a year.
#38REDACTED, Posted: Sep 19 2008 at 9:06 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Or you were probably not even responding to me. Just realized I have been shunned from your discussion with the dreaded (unless you are knoxsouthy) sub-default rating. So, you probably haven't even read any of my posts. Thank you for the little bit of time you all allowed me to share in your discussion.
#39 Sep 19 2008 at 9:14 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Mistress dacypher wrote:
If I was creating a new country, I would set up the presidential campaigns very differently.
You would call your new country America? How unoriginal.

RP's got it right; the politicans we got we deserve.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#40 Sep 19 2008 at 9:15 AM Rating: Decent
If I was creating a new country, I'd pick shadowrelm and knoxsouthy, stuff them in a deep hole, throw one spade between them and who ever came back up with the severed head of the other and spoke, clear and coherent english, I'd let them pick the president based on their political leanings.

shadowrelm/Obama vs knox/McCain. Pay per view would be sold out instantly.
#41 Sep 19 2008 at 9:18 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Kaelesh wrote:
If I was creating a new country, I'd pick shadowrelm and knoxsouthy, stuff them in a deep hole, throw one spade between them and who ever came back up with the severed head of the other and spoke, clear and coherent english, I'd let them pick the president based on their political leanings.

shadowrelm/Obama vs knox/McCain. Pay per view would be sold out instantly.
There can be no winner. You put in a stipulation that can't be met by either contestant. Are you going for anarchy?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#42 Sep 19 2008 at 9:20 AM Rating: Decent
They have to stay in the hole until either 1: shadow learns to speak english 2: knox dies of starvation and just admits that it was all an act, he really does hate freedom.
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 242 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (242)