NationStates Jolt Archive

So with those Congress elections lets hear some things! Will you be voting? If outside the US do you understand all this? Do you think its highly unfair? Will the Socialists ever win a seat?

You know. Start it now and let it build for when the mid-terms begin!

Isn't there one socialist who has a seat or is this the house of representitives?

Isn't there one socialist who has a seat or is this the house of representitives?

Generally the whole of Congress I 'spose. Erm there is a independent but he votes Democrat.

I understand the whole election process( i think) is that what you are asking is unfair??

Isn't there one socialist who has a seat or is this the house of representitives?

I believe you're thinking of Bernie Sanders from Vermont, and yes, in the House. Technically, he's listed as an independent. For committee purposes, he's listed as a Democrat, though, and caucuses with said party.

EDIT: Well, there's Jim Jeffords, too, I suppose (also from Vermont). He switched from Republican to Democrat a few years ago. He now calls himself an independent. I wouldn't call him a socialist, though.

So with those Congress elections lets hear some things! Will you be voting? If outside the US do you understand all this? Do you think its highly unfair? Will the Socialists ever win a seat?

You know. Start it now and let it build for when the mid-terms begin!
Okay, the entire House of Representatives is up for re-election and one-third of the Senate, plus a mess of state governors (the one where I live, Colorado, for instance).

I'm not sure what you think might be unfair. And I'd be really surprised if an avowed Socialist ever won a seat, but strange things do happen, so you never know.

Plurality voting is seen as unfair by some, perhaps?

Don't the Democrats expect to outnumber the Republicans, right?

Plurality voting is seen as unfair by some, perhaps?

Don't the Democrats expect to outnumber the Republicans, right?

They always hope to. Whether it'll actually happen is a different story.

I'm not sure what you think might be unfair. And I'd be really surprised if an avowed Socialist ever won a seat, but strange things do happen, so you never know.
A libertarian would be far more likely, but that's still nearly impossible, thank existence.

Comment on popular choices:
Republican- I don't like preemptive wars or social conservatism.
Democrat- I don't trust them and I don't like social conservatism.
Libertarians- Too extremist on economic issues.
Green- I don't care about the environment enough.
Socialist/Communist- Same as libertarians.

Really, the only people I could ever vote for are myself and a few people I know personally.

Isn't there one socialist who has a seat or is this the house of representitives?

It does not matter... the elections are biased towards the 2 parties and whoever lives in NY, FL, CA, and Ohio. It's not your vote that counts, it is how many people of the same ideolgy live near each other. The electoral college is anti-democratic (not the party (although they have seen injustice with it), the system of government) and needs to be outlawed.

A libertarian would be far more likely, but that's still nearly impossible, thank existence.

Comment on popular choices:
Republican- I don't like preemptive wars or social conservatism.
Democrat- I don't trust them and I don't like social conservatism.
Libertarians- Too extremist on economic issues.
Green- I don't care about the environment enough.
Socialist/Communist- Same as libertarians.

Really, the only people I could ever vote for are myself and a few people I know personally.

What this country needs is a party with Libertarian laws, Socialist services, liberal taxes (on the super-wealthy (and rich)). Let the poorer people keep some $$$), and labor prisons to fund it all (Prisoners make good houses.).

"Most of the tax break will go towards the people with an annual income of over $200M, or, as the government calls them, citizens." - Daily Show
Boo! No more animated smileys!

What this country needs is a party with Libertarian laws, Socialist services, liberal taxes (on the super-wealthy (and rich)). Let the poorer people keep some $$$), and labor prisons to fund it all (Prisoners make good houses.).

"Most of the tax break will go towards the people with an annual income of over $200M, or, as the government calls them, citizens." - Daily Show
Boo! No more animated smileys!

Further proof that crack kills brain cells.

Further proof that crack kills brain cells.

You will see... when you see the light... :D

What this country needs is a party with Libertarian laws, Socialist services, liberal taxes (on the super-wealthy (and rich)). Let the poorer people keep some $$$), and labor prisons to fund it all (Prisoners make good houses.).

"Most of the tax break will go towards the people with an annual income of over $200M, or, as the government calls them, citizens." - Daily Show
Boo! No more animated smileys!
You don't need labor prisons. You just need to cut military spending.

You will see... when you see the light... :D

Are you completely incapable of understanding the contradiction between libertarian laws and socialist services?

You don't need labor prisons. You just need to cut military spending.

Yes, but, even with that, the prisoners are WASTING $$$. If they MAKE $$$, a negative tax may be possible (like in Kuwait. Their government gave them all $700 each...).

So with those Congress elections lets hear some things! Will you be voting? If outside the US do you understand all this? Do you think its highly unfair? Will the Socialists ever win a seat?

You know. Start it now and let it build for when the mid-terms begin!

1) No, the Socialists will always lose because they have nothing the average American wants. Americans do NOT want some sort of equality, they want progress and someone looking out for them.

2) I split up my vote depending on the office and who is running.
For example, this year I'll vote Democrat for Senate (Lieberman, or whatever party Joe ends up on this year!), and Republican for Governor (Rell).

Isn't there one socialist who has a seat or is this the house of representitives?

Yes, Bernie Sanders, but he votes like a left-wing Democrat and is unaffiliated with the Socialist Party USA.

I'm a US socialist.

1) No, the Socialists will always lose because they have nothing the average American wants. Americans do NOT want some sort of equality, they want progress and someone looking out for them.

I feel sorry for the Americans who don't want at least some equality. Actually, pretty much for all people who don't want some equality.

Will the Socialists ever win a seat?
I hope not.

The Canadian economy is based almost entirely on selling things to Americans. We need your economy to be strong, and based heavily in buying our stuff (like oil).

I would vote for the Socialist Party USA, but no-one is running from them in Montana, so I guess I'll vote Democrat

So with those Congress elections lets hear some things! Will you be voting? If outside the US do you understand all this? Do you think its highly unfair? Will the Socialists ever win a seat?

You know. Start it now and let it build for when the mid-terms begin!
As someone who's 17, I'm too young too vote, but when I do start voting, it will most likely be Republican.

about 1 minuet ago I thought a mid-term was some sort of break from college :p

I wouldn't vote since:

1) I have yet to encounter an American politician who I would vote for

2) the Queen isn't standing for office

3) every American party has the flag waving crap about it I'm sorry but if you try and win my vote with a tacky flag in the background that supposedly represents morals and freedom you have lost my vote

4) American politicians are far too conservative for my European tastes

5) I’d sell my vote

6) secretly I have no interest in the American political system or which fossilised fat cat will get into office

You don't need labor prisons. You just need to cut military spending.
Yeah, and let America be overrun by terrorists.
:rolleyes:

Yeah, and let America be overrun by terrorists.
:rolleyes:

We spend more on our military than almost all other countries combined. Surely we don't need that much money in the defense budget.

We spend more on our military than almost all other countries combined. Surely we don't need that much money in the defense budget.

but then we Europeans would have to spend more money on defence so that we can protect ourselves rather than have the American do it for us!

guess we had better start Imperialism and huge wars again

I feel sorry for the Americans who don't want at least some equality. Actually, pretty much for all people who don't want some equality.

I was referring to economic equality, sorry if I was vague.

We spend more on our military than almost all other countries combined. Surely we don't need that much money in the defense budget.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but since the founding of the the planet is has always been the country with the strongest military which has survived.

Tack onto that America is the world's #1 economy, #1 culture exporter (no matter what one may think of it), and #1 nation for R&D/Graduate studies, etc. Most of the time, people don't hate the #3 guy. It's human nature to try to tear down #1.

...Also, by your logic we need to cut back on entitlements (ie: Social Security), since the US spends more on that than all other countries combined, too!

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but since the founding of the the planet is has always been the country with the strongest military which has survived.

China has been around a long time and what about the swiss?

Tack onto that America is the world's #1 economy, #1 culture exporter (no matter what one may think of it)

I wouldn't say America is the worlds number 1 economy it hasn't been that for some time as for culture there is a reason why they call it western culture

China has been around a long time and what about the swiss?

China has been around since 1 October 1949. Because they were weak (cf: Boxer rebellion era), the Japanese swept them aside with relative ease.
Sure, China has existed as a concept for hundreds of years, and in various iterations. There has also been a Slovakia for hundreds of years... surely you don't mean to argue that there has been continuous governance there, too? :)

The Swiss? You mean those absurdly well armed guys sitting on top of the Alps?

I wouldn't say America is the worlds number 1 economy it hasn't been that for some time as for culture there is a reason why they call it western culture

Name a country with a larger economy, please.

That depends on how large or small a definition you want to use (US culture vs. NYC culture, etc...). However, while all cultures effect each other, the US does so more than others. Hollywood, Starbucks, McDonalds, etc see to that.

I wouldn't say America is the worlds number 1 economy
That one's not really open for debate.

Unless you're ranking them according to something odd.

Either way I cannot see the Reps winning the Presidency again. Apathy will probably keep getting higher and higher too. The moderate Democrats, along with the conservative Democrats, run the party (Lieberman) and have meant its so close to Republicanism that you can vote either or and get the same sort of result. Its only the left-wing Demmies and the anti-everything Reps that make US Politics any fun at all.

Something I read today cited Blair as 'US Liberal's darling'. The fuck? He's barely liberal at all.

I'm probably going to end up voting Republican. I don't exactly want to vote for a bunch of sell-outs who sit on their asses and rant on and on about Mexicans, but I'm sure as hell not voting for a Democrat- it's not that they'll not do anything either, it's just that they'll do all those things that offend my capitalist palette.

Doing your civic duty sucks sometimes.

Edit: No, I'm not going to vote Libertarian. Don't ask.

Either way I cannot see the Reps winning the Presidency again. Apathy will probably keep getting higher and higher too. The moderate Democrats, along with the conservative Democrats, run the party (Lieberman) and have meant its so close to Republicanism that you can vote either or and get the same sort of result. Its only the left-wing Demmies and the anti-everything Reps that make US Politics any fun at all.

Something I read today cited Blair as 'US Liberal's darling'. The fuck? He's barely liberal at all.

It depends on who the candidates are. Clinton is inherently unelectable... so is Gore. If McCain runs, the Dems will be hard pressed to win.

Yes, but, even with that, the prisoners are WASTING $$$. If they MAKE $$$, a negative tax may be possible (like in Kuwait. Their government gave them all $700 each...).
Or Alaska. $2000, is it? Sweet.

I'm a US socialist.

Haha!

Yeah, and let America be overrun by terrorists.
:rolleyes:

HAHA!!!

...Also, by your logic we need to cut back on entitlements (ie: Social Security), since the US spends more on that than all other countries combined, too!

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh please, stop! I'm dying from laughter! You people are killing me!

I'm probably going to end up voting Republican. I don't exactly want to vote for a bunch of sell-outs who sit on their asses and rant on and on about Mexicans, but I'm sure as hell not voting for a Democrat- it's not that they'll not do anything either, it's just that they'll do all those things that offend my capitalist palette.

Doing your civic duty sucks sometimes.

Edit: No, I'm not going to vote Libertarian. Don't ask.
Oh, but I will ask. When you say something like, "I hate the intolerent social policies of the GOP, but I hate the Socialist economic policies of the Dems. Surely the answer is to not vote for the one party that hates those two things also." you have some explaining to do. C'mon, we need the help.
AND
We have cookies.

What the hell is a mid-term election?

What the hell is a mid-term election?

Federal elections are held every two years. The years where there is no election for the presidency (because it only happens every four years) are called mid-terms. I imagine because they happen in the middle of the presidents term.

Normally the party controlling the whitehouse loses seats during mid-terms.

Federal elections are held every two years. The years where there is no election for the presidency (because it only happens every four years) are called mid-terms. I imagine because they happen in the middle of the presidents term.

Normally the party controlling the whitehouse loses seats during mid-terms.
0_o

And you guys think votes of non-confidence are wierd....

0_o

And you guys think votes of non-confidence are wierd....

It made sense back in the day when it was all horse and buggies. Now not so much. More irritating is the length of the US election cycle.

Oh, but I will ask. When you say something like, "I hate the intolerent social policies of the GOP, but I hate the Socialist economic policies of the Dems. Surely the answer is to not vote for the one party that hates those two things also." you have some explaining to do. C'mon, we need the help.
AND
We have cookies.

Well... the reason I don't vote Libertarian is that I'm A.) hawkish and B.) I'm pro-life... but... cookies...

Alright, you win. I'll be expecting the cookies in my Swiss bank account. :D

It made sense back in the day when it was all horse and buggies. Now not so much. More irritating is the length of the US election cycle.
I think that it would make more sense now. Back then, communication was slower, so things changed slower.

But still, being able to re-elect your house without being able to re-elect your leader?

I think that it would make more sense now. Back then, communication was slower, so things changed slower.

But still, being able to re-elect your house without being able to re-elect your leader?

Remember, it's quite a different system we have down here. The President isn't the leader of Congress the way the PM is the leader of the House. Your House, by definition is rarely at odds with the PM while our Congress, again by definition is often at odds with the President.

Of course, it's not a very good system for the gigantic unitary state the US has become. Way back then, most domestic issues were handled by the states, so Federal elections weren't quite as important as they are now.

But still, being able to re-elect your house without being able to re-elect your leader?

Well the executive function of government is theoretically split from the legislative one, so it makes sense - or at least doesn't create any insurmountable problems . The president theoretically is apart from the party caucus in the congress so he has no parliamentary functions. (Appointment to comitees and the like).

Different in parliaments modeled after the UKs. Executive functions (royal perogative I suppose) are merged with the legislature.

In the same way we can end up with a president whose party is in the minority in the congress.

Remember, it's quite a different system we have down here. The President isn't the leader of Congress the way the PM is the leader of the House. Your House, by definition is rarely at odds with the PM while our Congress, again by definition is often at odds with the President.
That's cause voting against your party leader can get you booted out of the party.:D

Don't think the president can do that.

That's cause voting against your party leader can get you booted out of the party.:D

Don't think the president can do that.

Certainly not. In the actual structure of the Congress (not necessarily how it actually works) parties matter far less than they do in your House. Theoretically Congress could work just fine without any parties, but your House requires them.

Also, there are rare occaisions when the President isn't the party leader. Thaddeus Stevens was more the leader of the Republicans than Lincoln was towards the end of Lincoln's life. And he was certainly more the leader of the party than Johnson was.

Certainly not. In the actual structure of the Congress (not necessarily how it actually works) parties matter far less than they do in your House. Theoretically Congress could work just fine without any parties, but your House requires them.

Also, there are rare occaisions when the President isn't the party leader. Thaddeus Stevens was more the leader of the Republicans than Lincoln was towards the end of Lincoln's life. And he was certainly more the leader of the party than Johnson was.
Ours could work without Parties. There just wouldn't be any Party Leaders (no parties) nor a PM (no party leaders).

Ours could work without Parties. There just wouldn't be any Party Leaders (no parties) nor a PM (no party leaders).

But with no PM, who would instruct the GG how to exercise the royal perogative? Or would he or she get control of the executive back?

But with no PM, who would instruct the GG how to exercise the royal perogative? Or would he or she get control of the executive back?
MoP advise the GG. De facto the PM is listened to, because he typically has control over parilment.

MoP advise the GG. De facto the PM is listened to, because he typically has control over parilment.

So you'd still need some type of parliamentary leadership, just not one based upon parties however.

0_o

And you guys think votes of non-confidence are wierd....
Well, I wouldn't call them weird. The parliamentary system could be either laughably unstable like Italy's, or frighteningly entrenched like Cuba's. Although they usually aren't, the possibility exists.

At least we are guaranteed to have the ability to elect an entirely new House and a third of the Senate every two years. While you're only guaranteed to have an election every five years, I believe.

Well, I wouldn't call them weird. The parliamentary system could be either laughably unstable like Italy's, or frighteningly entrenched like Cuba's. Although they usually aren't, the possibility exists.

At least we are guaranteed to have the ability to elect an entirely new House and a third of the Senate every two years. While you're only guaranteed to have an election every five years, I believe.
We could also have them three times a year.

And elect an entirely new house each year? Isn't the US's imcumbancy rate in the 98% range?

We could also have them three times a year.

And elect an entirely new house each year? Isn't the US's imcumbancy rate in the 98% range?
I said we had the ability to elect a new House every two years. Whether or not that actually happens is up to the voters. In 1994, 54 Republicans were voted into office. That was the biggest it's seen so far. But watch in November and see what happens!