Is Democracy Dead?

[saangels]

The one thing conservatives and liberals on this message board and in general throughout the country seem to agree on is the fact that the United States government is corrupt as hell and heading in the wrong direction.  Taken from a previous thread:

 

Geoff Stoddart: “It’s cute how many people thought that Obama would be different then Bush.”

 

RallyMo: “For the most part red=poop…red=blue.”

 

Arch Stanton: “Can’t we just toss them all out and start over?”

 

Futch Winkleman: “At least Dubya tried to conceal his bullshit in the form of the Patriot Act…Obama doesn’t even try to hide it.”

               

These four comments were made by different people representing very different political ideologies; Geoff is conservative, Futch is liberal, Arch Stanton and RallyMo are probably somewhere in the middle—it’s not really up to me to put labels on them.  My point is: we all seem to agree, regardless of where we stand politically, at this current stage in our nation's history, that whether a republican or democrat wins the presidential election, it doesn’t really make a difference either way.  So why do we vote?  I understand the “lesser of two evils” argument—but that certainly isn’t what the founding fathers had in mind when they set this country up.  My question to you, then, my fellow Angel fans, is: do you believe, in spite of everything that you say on this message board, that your vote still counts?  If not: does that mean that democracy is dead?       

[Jason]

It's not dead but its limited to voting for the 2 candidates that "they" pick for us. I'm a conservative but find myself torn because I often don't like either candidate. Sure I could vote for a 3rd party candidate but usually that just takes votes away from the others.

[mtangelsfan]

I would actually classify all four of those posters as somewhere in the middle.

 

Regardless, I can only speak for myself.  I vote because generations of Americans have given their lives for that right.  It is really our only voice in this government.  It may seem like nothing, and in many ways it is, but I will always do so.  I just won't cast my vote for the lesser evil anymore.  

[nate]

The corruption comes from two parties and money.  There is no incentive to work together or to compromise.  Most campaigns are funded by lobby groups.  Then they use the money from the lobby groups to attack the other candidate instead of just run on their values and issues.

 

Then you reach the biggest problem... term limits.  The Congress and the Senate spend as much time campaigning for their next election as they do legislating.  Again it is all about money and lobby groups.  The purpose of the legislature was supposed to be that they do what is best for the people in their precinct but instead they just do what their party tells them and what the lobby pays them to do.

 

Like MT said, I am tired of voting for the lesser evil.  I voted for Bush both times because I thought he was the better candidate... I don't really regret that but voting for Obama in his first term was a huge mistake.  In CA it doesn't really matter anyway but he has been absolutely awful.  Problem was I don't think Romney would have been any better.  I voted Libertarian last time and I probably will for the rest of my life.

 

I think Obama's biggest flaw is not his liberal crap, which I don't like, it is his inability to get anything productive done.  A good President can get the House/Senate by their balls and get them to come to a compromise to get shit done.  Obama just whines and complains to the media that the Republicans aren't working with him.  Make them you worthless asshole.

[Spirit]

I'm not a conservative, I just play one on TV ... errrrr ... the AngelsWin Spin board.  

[Glen]

Just a few hours ago at work we were having a political discussion and somebody asked "man, when was the last time we had two good candidates to choose from?"  The oldest guy in the group mentioned Hoover and Eisenhower.  None of the rest of us had anything to say.

 

I voted for Gary Johnson last year and felt OK about it, but knew it was something of a "wasted" vote.  I think Nate summed it up pretty well. 

[arch stanton]

"Democracy" is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

 

Right now those two wolves are the parties and the lamb is the tiny voice of 300 million voters. If you want your country back you have to break the stranglehold. I have not voted for a single ® or (D) since 1982. Vote for any or all other. Vote for the field. But if you vote for the party, either party, you vote for more of the same. It's like Stockholm Syndrome for the electorate.

[saangels]

 

 

It's not dead but its limited to voting for the 2 candidates that "they" pick for us. I'm a conservative but find myself torn because I often don't like either candidate. Sure I could vote for a 3rd party candidate but usually that just takes votes away from the others.

Based on that very point, Angels N Skins, I would argue that democracy is dead.  What difference does it make if we have "the right" to vote for sh*thead A or sh*thead B?  In the end, it isn't our votes that count--it's the amount of money that the lobbyists and PACs raise to get these two candidates into a position to compete in the first place.  I, too, would like to vote for a third party candidate; but what's the point if that candidate has no chance in hell to win?  I can see voting in local elections; that makes sense.  But taking all the aforementioned information into consideration, without even getting into the debate about the electoral college, regardless of how many people died for this "right" of ours, I don't see how anybody can, in this day in age, still believe that their vote makes a difference.       

[HaloMagic]

Right now those two wolves are the parties and the lamb is the tiny voice of 300 million voters.

There must have been a good showing of illegals and the dead in that election if we got 300 million votes.

[nate]

panem et circenses

[arch stanton]

There must have been a good showing of illegals and the dead in that election if we got 300 million votes.

Give yourself 2 gold stars for managing to bypass the entire discussion in order to point out a numerical inaccuracy. Take 1 extra for every spelling error you find.

[HaloMagic]

I'd prefer a cookie. We all already get gold stars and participation trophies. It is still America, after all.

[Jason]

There must have been a good showing of illegals and the dead in that election if we got 300 million votes.

There's probably some truth in this sarcasm.

[Spirit]

Give yourself 2 gold stars for managing to bypass the entire discussion in order to point out a numerical inaccuracy. Take 1 extra for every spelling error you find.

 

HM is apparently a big fan of business as usual. 

[Spirit]

To answer saangels' questions as to "does my vote count" and "is democracy dead"  -  I don't think we live in a democracy today as much as we live in an auction house.  I haven't seen the updated numbers since last year's elections, but prior to that the person/party who spent the most money in a campaign won the election something like 94% of the time.  That's insane.  

 

What do we do about it?  I don't know, because I absolutely believe that people have a right to spend their money on whatever cause they want.  Even if it's a political campaign.  It's their money after all.  Should companies, unions and PACs be considered "people?"  That's a thread with a minimum of 30 pages. 

[nate]

To Geoff's point, and I hope I am not opening a can of worms, but the idea of a democracy is that each person has the same status.  When you start factoring in money and 1% of the population controls 20% of the wealth then you get a big imbalance.  That is what campaign finance reform tried to achieve by limiting corporate sponsorship of political parties but as we know it totally failed.  No matter what the money always finds a loophole.

 

The other thing is the biggest money lobbies have their hands on both parties, which is one of the reasons why the biggest issues with budget, etc never get solved.  Energy, defense, etc.  Instead of addressing the issues with those budgets we end up cutting 100 little programs that actually affect lives directly because neither side wants to address the bigger issues.

[Jay]

need term limits

[Adam]

The only people who seem to think there is a problem with both parties post on message boards. Most of my family, neighbors, clients, employees, co-workers, vendors, facebook dipshits are all in for either the Rs or the Ds. How many members are there of AW? Probably 2-5% of which post in the spin forum. The rest are either completely void of political opinion or hardcore R or D

[mrwicked]

every generation thinks the country is going to sh*t.

[Jay]

that's because it is

[RallyMo]

HM is apparently a big fan of business as usual. 

 

If making a joke/one-off comment in a thread in this forum is tantamount to being a "big fan of business as usual", we're all big fans of business as usual.

 

Feel free to respond with something about a banjo.

[Angel Oracle]

Solution to "Campaigning for re-election as much as legislating"?

Limit ANY politician to one term, and to counter the argument that 4 years isn't enough time to make a difference, make them all 6 year terms.    If you can't make a difference in 6 years, get out! 

 

Time to get "being re-elected" out of every politician's agenda!  

[nate]

Four years is plenty of time.  Right now they spend about 1.5 out of 4 years actually working, the other 2.5 fundraising and campaigning.

[mtangelsfan]

I think there should be longer, single terms for all federal elected officials.

[Angel Oracle]

It's beyond a joke by now.

Why do we even need the right for politicians to be re-elected, given the mess this country is in and the fact that they let it dominate their time?