Expanding the Debate
Locked
12
12
Expanding the Debate
 
|
Re: Expanding the Debate
|
|
Re: Expanding the Debate
|
|
Re: Expanding the Debate
|
|
Re: Expanding the Debate
|
|
Re: Expanding the Debate
|
|
Re: Expanding the Debate
|
|
Re: Expanding the Debate
|
|
Re: Expanding the Debate
|
|
Re: Expanding the Debate
|
|
Re: Expanding the Debate
|
|
Re: Expanding the Debate
|
|
Re: Expanding the Debate
|
|
Re: Expanding the Debate
|
|
Re: Expanding the Debate
|
|
Sarbajit -
OK... so I was being hyperbolic... the point is that you (and I) are more likely (statistically) to be descended from Gangly Khan than evil Kingly John... unless of course, I become President in which case all bets are off.Only 1 in 200 men are descended from Genghis Khan. http://www.cell.com/AJHG/retrieve/pii/S0002929707605874 I am not.You've verified that? I haven't a clue for myself. Your premise about "splitting the vote" is fallacious.I'm not sure I understand why you say that. It is hard to *prove* that a third party has shifted the winner in a US Presidential election, but there is some strong evidence that it might have happened twice in very recent times. I do think that the whiners who complain that Nader split the Dem vote enough to undermine Gore are correct, that had he not been on the ballot that Gore would have taken more of the Nader votes than Bush (at least 129 or whatever the presumed margin was?)... taking all the fun out of a nation alternately holding it's breath watching the election coin stand on it's edge and puffing with all their might to get it to fall *their way*. Many also believe that Perot hosed George Sr. against Clinton in 1992 (43%, 37%, 19%) if not also Dole in 1996 (not as likely). I do think that Johnson being on the ballot may actually swing one state or another over the middle (NM and CO he might take from Obama and in several *larger* states, he might take from Romney)... I'm not sure those states would swing the whole election but it seems possible if not likely. I'm pretty sure you are correct about that. Butterflies and Hurricanes notwithstanding.1) Nothing you, Joe or this mailing list does is going to affect the outcome on Nov 6. But might we effect how *we* think (and talk) about the issues. I'm not terribly interested in the discussion between the candidates to date... I'm more interested in the issues they are *avoiding* discussing. Even if it doesn't change the vote (this time), I still hold out hope that we can move on to more substantive and important and real issues than those allowed by those already holding power. Barring that, I hope the participants in this Democracy *act* like participants, not like subjects (oppression of the minority by the majority) or worse spectators! Which means discussing substantive issues and seeking real solutions to real problems. Taken literally, of course this is correct (if I understand your point). In my utopian fantasy, the actual "vote" is a formality... it would be the debate/discussion leading up to the vote, with a much less marginal victory defining our democracy... we currently treat the democratic process like a big tug of war, with the side having the biggest bullies or the most will (or money) winning...2) A "vote" by its very definition incorporates a "split" Ideally, we have a *participatory* Democracy, but in fact, we seem to have a *spectator* Democracy. When Kennedy demonstrated that TV was central to (the new) Presidental Politics, things changed substantially... and probably not for the better. That is what I'm looking for an angle on changing... not how this particular election swings, but even in the most minute way, how we do or don't *think about* and *discuss* the issues rather than see how much money we can raise for lobbyists and airtime on TV. I know plenty of people who identify as independents (as opposed to Independents) who are *clearly* on one end of the tug-of-war rope or the other. I think they are just embarrassed to wear the t-shirt for the team. I've been on both sides of that rope and can say I'm not proud to wear *either* T-shirt, but that doesn't mean I don't know why I'm on the side I am on (at the moment). I wonder if there is precedent, in fact, for a 3 (or more) way tug-of-war contest. It might actually be a useful model for the political analog? Or this?3) It seems that 40% of the voting US population doesn't fall into the hard-headed camp (they identify themselves as Independents) [http://www.webcitation.org/690ibz8mi]  I really don't think 40% of the voting US population is up for grabs... I'm not even sure the 2-4% usually reported as "undecided" are actually up for grabs... they are just resisting the invasion of privacy of pollsters. The hard headed people I speak of are the ones who decided *before* the discussion (debate?) what their position was without any chance of changing their mind or changing the question to one they can agree on, and I think that is more than 60% of the (voting) population. But since the TV debates are mostly a sham, how could anyone do anything else (unless they have their own discussions and debates on the issues!?)??! Absolutely... in fact, I suspect the TV debates have more impact on most FRIAM members than FRIAM discussions. <bigger sigh>and for them TV debates would have more impact than the discussions at FRIAM <sigh> And since (IMO) the debates are not debating much of substance, the only thing left to persuade people is how much one candidate or the other "looks/talks/walks" like their image of a President. This smacks too much of our Anthropomorphic God (created in an old White Man's image). If we are voting for who we most want to look like, sound like, or sleep with, then maybe white bread America *will* go for Romney over Obama (where's VPILF Palin when you need her?). Watching people watch the debates is a little like watching people watch "American Idol" or one of the Reality TV shows or more generously the Olympics. It is as much about the spectacle as the substance. At least in the Olympics there is as much skill and natural aptitude as style being displayed. Then (in my opinion) that would say 4% of the Independents are more interested in superficial stage-performance than the issues... and yes, from what little I could stand to watch/listen to, Mitt had a much better *performance* than Barack... which only matters if we let it. The Green and the Justice party candidates (off stage) had much more interesting responses to the questions. Gary Johnson in his off-debate interview the day of the debates was much more relevant to the real problems of this country (and by extension the world to some extent?) than what happened on all the TV channels the other night.4) Mitt Romney apparently picked up 4 percent of the Independent vote after the first TV debate. Like I said, they aren't really independent (or Independent), just too "timid" as you say, to "wear the T-shirt" (as I say). If I vote for Obama, it will be for *continued* change. If I don't it will be for *yet more* change. And if I vote for Romney it will be because I had a brain aneurism or telepathic control from outside between now and then! But I *might* be persuaded by honest debate that *some* of his positions are more better than Obama's *if* they actually had an honest debate.5) In advanced democracies, the swing/independent voters vote for CHANGE .. the anti-incumbency effect. Whereas in the US it seems that the Independent voters are the timid ones who prefer the known evil to the unknown one. As long as we have only two parties, even with what you call an "advanced democracy" and the anti-incumbency effect, all we get is a 4-8 year periodic oscillation between two positions which we may not even really care for. I wasn't *sure* how I was registered so I went and looked in the NM online DB and was not surprised to find that my "Party Affiliation" was "Not Declared". If I get counted as an Independent (American Independent) then it is a tragedy. I have been embarrassed by *both* of the dominant parties since my first vote nearly 40 years ago. Occasionally I might be tempted to wear a Green T-shirt or even a Libertarian (at least until I look around and see the cranks wearing them with me) but the marginalization of 3rd parties at this level means they are either toothless or have to make big concessions (Nader as a Green?). All things are possible. Even though I knew it was time for the pendulum to swing to the Republicans in 2000, I couldn't believe Dubya could win, that was just too (in)credible. Many claim that he didn't (whether it be Nader splitting the Dem vote or various nefarious people stealing it outright).6) Based on this [http://www.webcitation.org/690ibz8mi] it seems that more Democrats would vote for Romney than Republicans for Obama. I still predict Obama taking this by a decent margin, but if we really are a "Beauty Contest"/"Reality TV" culture (and I fear we might be), then I might be surprised and Doug might have to start a new blog: "Murrica, the Real Story" and maybe even toss Romney down an Elevator Shaft for us (figuratively of course). - Steve On 10/6/12, Steve Smith [hidden email] wrote:Sarbajit wrote...http://www.quora.com/Are-all-the-US-Presidents-related-to-each-other It seems that except for Martin Buren, all the US Presidents are descended from evil King John.They are all also probably descended from Genghis Khan as well... but then, so are you and I! By coincidence, I've a friend in Santa Fe who is descended from Van Buren... King John or not, the blood there is still rather cyanotic... I understand Joe's implication about "splitting the vote" and I'm not interested in helping the candidate with the most inflexible, hard-headed supporters (those less likely to be split), but rather, as he implies a change in structure where we can vote for who we *really* while also voting for *the lesser of other evils*. I'm more interested in how the debate (the general debate among all of us, not the televised one between anointed candidates) is shaped. Politics is at best, a "necessary evil". Leadership and discussion in the building of a dynamic, progressive culture is what I seek, not statesmanship or nation building, much less grandstanding, fearmongering, special-interest-leveraging, etc. (also Mom and Apple Pie while I'm at it...) - Steve============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Expanding the Debate
|
|
Re: Expanding the Debate
|
|
Re: Expanding the Debate
|
|
Re: Expanding the Debate
|
|
Re: Expanding the Debate
|
|
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |