markofmayhemI can haz competition?Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:4 | USA no longer equipped to practice democracy Our democratic process to elect representatives has broken down, not because of government, corporations, instant information, busier lives due to technology, etc.... but because the electorate has disengaged. The electorate no longer elects candidates to serve them. We, as voters, do not view government as our servants anymore. If government isn't serving the electorate, the system we use here in this country fails. It is a two-way street, with one-way action.
I charge people reading this to answer a question:
When was the last time you voted for a candidate because they shared the majority of your political ideals? MAJORITY, not one or two, not due to party membership. You may be thinking to yourself, "there hasn't been a candidate like that"... I would agree, as I said, the problem is in both directions.
We don't have candidates that see the House and Senate as a greater calling to "God and Country". It is a monetary position to hold in establishing power to receive position for earning money during and after the term "served". They serve themselves, not the electorate.
This is YOUR fault. For one, the average "good citizen" doesn't put themselves on the ballot. Our candidates are people in the system looking to advance further up the power totem pole. We are no longer represented by ourselves, we our represented by the establishment. This isn't because all candidates are corrupt, it is because the electorate disengaged. The amount of money spent on advertising over radio, internet, and TV should be wasted money. This avenue of campaigning SHOULD have zero effect as it is used today. 30-second sound bites and quick "I love Mom and Apple Pie" internet flash side-bar ads shouldn't sway you to vote one way or another... EVER. But it does, because the electorate does not give the time and attention it should in deciding it's representatives. The voters failed, not government. Is it too much trouble to ask everyone practicing their voting right to spend 20 minutes a year and CHOOSE a representative that will serve their interests?
Each time I see news like this, where "government is bad because it doesn't force big companies to do ____", I cringe. For one, big companies are also represented by our government, in the same capacity and regard as the people. Their, what seems to be, endless wallets of cash appear to be winning "government" over more than our votes. OUR fault. Two, nothing will change. The electorate is stuck choosing their candidates in less than 30 seconds of thought process due to one of three criteria: Party affiliation, stance on abortion/life, promise to lower taxes. That's it. That is what our representatives are responsible for in the eyes of the electorate.
Forget that they are the stewards of the largest economy on Earth, forget that they are the chiefs of the strongest military on Earth, nevermind that other governments look to these elected officials to set trends and flows for the future... if they are red/blue, pro-life/pro-choice, and promise to lower a single tax: they will get your dumb ass's vote. A shame, for that no-name at the bottom of the list with a little "i" or some other letter that isn't R or D may have a 20 page document of "political stances and ideals" that is in direct agreement with your own, yet you throw your vote away for the more hot-topic agreeing candidate rather than a true representative. We need to clean House, but we need to do it with electing ourselves. Easy to claim, difficult to accomplish. |
|
dagg
join:2001-03-25
Galt, CA | its like the ampm of the thread... so much good stuff....
some things to think about however.
the last time i voted for someone that I shared the majority of their outlook was in a state legislature race... in 1992.
While your idea for that is good, those being put up before us for elections are not so good. The field is constantly devoid of any real quality.
You say its my fault, because the average good citizen does not put themselves up for elected office. Ok, fine... elect me and ill serve. i dont see anyone lining up to put me in office even though id be willing to serve (hey, couldnt do any worse then those already doing it and at least I'd tell the lobbyists to shove it).
I dont entirely disagree with the fact that the (D), (R) or (I) indicators after a politicians name has much of anything to do with anything anymore since bad is pretty much bad and these days its rather difficult to see any differences between any of them.
so, while your critique of politics is a good armchair quarterback version of what needs to be done, are you actually ready to step up to the plate, let your life become an open book for all to inspect and dig up any (and I do mean ANY) potential hidden skeletons that might be there and toss your name into the ring? if so, kudos to you.
if not... well, I guess you are really just being hypocritical then. |
|
markofmayhemI can haz competition?Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:4
1 edit | It is not hypocritical to critique a system I'm only a member of one half in has broken down. I ran 6 years ago, I lost. It will take me another 5-7 years to raise the capital to try again.
Though I believe you may have not read deep enough into the critique I offered. The problem is two fold:
1. the candidates offered are not representing us
2. the electorate isn't electing representatives
The solution is the electorate changes. The methods to get there quickly and painlessly are unkown to me. I believe time and pain will be a requirement from ourselves. There has to be a beginning at some point, if nothing more than convincing yourself, family, and friends to take 20 minutes a year, choose one open office, and deeply research each candidate to choose the best representative you conclude, for you, by you... and forget the "they have a snowballs chance in hell to win, I'm throwing away my vote for a loser". Don't buy into it, vote for YOUR representative based on YOUR own research. It has to start somewhere.
--
I can haz competition? |
|
| Any of you can run for office. Your main problem is right back in the Telco and Media's collective lap. Paying for airtime to make yourself and your views known. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
1 edit | reply to markofmayhem
said by markofmayhem:The electorate is stuck choosing their candidates in less than 30 seconds of thought process due to one of three criteria: Party affiliation, stance on abortion/life, promise to lower taxes. That's it. That is what our representatives are responsible for in the eyes of the electorate. Quite a few voters spend more than thirty seconds making their choice but the truth is politicians lie. Our current President ran to the center and benefited from anger against our last President but clearly intends to govern from the the far left despite having no mandate from the voters to do so. Politicians like him and many others from both sides of the aisle only serve to polarize the voters in the long run. The most difficult thing for voters is getting rid of politicians who lie but unfortunately many politicians are so skilled at telling lies they get away with it repeatedly. |
|
1 edit | said by Sammer:said by markofmayhem:The electorate is stuck choosing their candidates in less than 30 seconds of thought process due to one of three criteria: Party affiliation, stance on abortion/life, promise to lower taxes. That's it. That is what our representatives are responsible for in the eyes of the electorate. Quite a few voters spend more than thirty seconds making their choice but the truth is politicians lie. Our current President ran to the center and benefited from anger against our last President but clearly intends to govern from the the far left despite having no mandate from the voters to do so. Politicians like him and many others from both sides of the aisle only serve to polarize the voters in the long run. The most difficult thing for voters is getting rid of politicians who lie but unfortunately many politicians are so skilled at telling lies they get away with it repeatedly. *facepalm*
Far left? Are you deluded? What about about the recent healthcare bill is "far left"?
The bill is almost exactly what Republicans wanted back in '93. This would have been considered a Republican victory 15 years ago.
*YOU* represent what's wrong with America. There are too many stupid people who are so misinformed about real life and the world around them. They've been so spoiled by decades of America's world economic and military dominance they've never had to look beyond their own petty noses.
As they say, truth has a liberal bias. |
|
WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | reply to Sammer
The biggest problem is most people only want to hear about the fight on the News. If they go into depth on issues they switch channel. Take the Health Care Bill just passed there was very little about what might be in the bill but most of the reports were about the fighting between the two parties.
When telephones first started there was open competition and the public got tired of every company running their own separate line. Look at the airline industry only one company may be making a profit. To much competition is good in the beginning but if no one is making money the infrastructure is not upgraded. Was the dot com successful for infrastructure? NO only about 1 company survived because most found it was harder and more expensive to build then it looks on paper.
For all those that are gung ho for net neutrality can the government come make you rent that spare bedroom at a set price. I have seen the Bells cut back on doing anything extra because they were being made to share under cost anything extra. That is one reason DSL hit 3 to 6 Meg and just stopped. More companies beget more CEOs and upper management not more technicians. |
|
|
|
| said by WhatNow:The biggest problem is most people only want to hear about the fight on the News. If they go into depth on issues they switch channel. Take the Health Care Bill just passed there was very little about what might be in the bill but most of the reports were about the fighting between the two parties. When telephones first started there was open competition and the public got tired of every company running their own separate line. Look at the airline industry only one company may be making a profit. To much competition is good in the beginning but if no one is making money the infrastructure is not upgraded. Was the dot com successful for infrastructure? NO only about 1 company survived because most found it was harder and more expensive to build then it looks on paper. For all those that are gung ho for net neutrality can the government come make you rent that spare bedroom at a set price. I have seen the Bells cut back on doing anything extra because they were being made to share under cost anything extra. That is one reason DSL hit 3 to 6 Meg and just stopped. More companies beget more CEOs and upper management not more technicians. I don't know what you're trying to say. The lack of competition is directly related to the gutting of the 1996 Telecom Act by Republican FCC commissioners, Congress, and telecoms in court.
The dot com boom did lead to the buildout of a ton of infrastructure. It just happened so fast that most of the companies went bankrupt, and successful companies like Google were able to buy it all up for pennies on the dollar. |
|
Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
| most of that infrastructure is run today by the MSOs. Remember @Home? Comcast, Charter, Cox, Cablevision and many others were part of that deal. When @home went bankrupt the MSOs took over the network and still use and upgrade the systems still.
--
www.twopugsbrand.com ONLINE STORE NOW ONLINE! up to 50% off SRP of Happy Tails Spa products. |
|
 joebarnhartPaxio evangelist
join:2005-12-15
Santa Clara, CA | reply to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:*YOU* represent what's wrong with America. Actually, Sonic, I think the only thing wrong with America right now is that people can't have a reasonable discourse without resorting to personal attacks. The political process can't work with all the vitriol. We all need to chill and persuade others with our rhetoric, not demonize them. |
|
 JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | reply to Sammer
said by Sammer:said by markofmayhem:The electorate is stuck choosing their candidates in less than 30 seconds of thought process due to one of three criteria: Party affiliation, stance on abortion/life, promise to lower taxes. That's it. That is what our representatives are responsible for in the eyes of the electorate. Quite a few voters spend more than thirty seconds making their choice but the truth is politicians lie. Our current President ran to the center and benefited from anger against our last President but clearly intends to govern from the the far left despite having no mandate from the voters to do so. Politicians like him and many others from both sides of the aisle only serve to polarize the voters in the long run. The most difficult thing for voters is getting rid of politicians who lie but unfortunately many politicians are so skilled at telling lies they get away with it repeatedly. Can you give us a break down on what far left policies he's implemented? Really. Can you? |
|
markofmayhemI can haz competition?Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:4
3 edits | Stop!....
Far left, Far right... STOP!
There are more than "two" sides to everything, many many more. Republican - Democract. Left - Right. Socialist - Capatilist. Choice - Life. Conservative - Liberal. STOP! We need MORE choice, stop playing into the establishment where only two sides exist. If you have multiple opponents, you have to win yourself. If you only have one opponent, you don't have to win, they just have to lose.
IF YOU ONLY HAVE ONE OPPONENT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO WIN VOTES, YOU JUST HAVE TO NOT LOSE. Demoralizing the opponents voter base is strategy #1, not convincing people you will serve them as a representative.
If you can't see the difference, learn. Stop playing into the polarization. Both Democrats and Republicans want one opponent only. Force them to have more so that we get more topics. Haven't you noticed how much more in-depth primaries usually are? With 4-5 candidates actually giving views, projections, ideas, background, "plans". Then the real election comes and it turns into "My opponent was on top of a hooker last night and was looking at your daughter this morning".
--
I can haz competition? |
|
