You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Divide seen in voter knowledge
- Thread starter it290
- Start date
Please keep the discussion civil.
There's actually an excellent piece in the New York Times Magazine that explores this issue in more depth with regard to the Bush administration. The most (in)famous part is this:
<!--QuoteBegin-Ron Suskind
In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''[/quote]
Originally posted by Steven Kull+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Steven Kull)</div><div class='quotemain'>It is rather unique the extent to which we have different perceptions of reality[/b]
There's actually an excellent piece in the New York Times Magazine that explores this issue in more depth with regard to the Bush administration. The most (in)famous part is this:
<!--QuoteBegin-Ron Suskind
In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''[/quote]
Yes, and Baudrillard explored that avenue more than twenty years ago... I agree with most of that theory, however it doesn't make it any less scary- although, truly, I'm not sure which is more frightening - the (mis)perceptions that people have, or the individuals that don't care about the 'actual' reality at all.
I like how both sides hide the ball, and accuse the other of being blind. If truth is what you're after, there's problems on your side too. "Would Kerry have gone to war in Iraq if he was president?" is my favorite question, because they cannot deviate from the "Not like Bush" answer. Never yes, never no, because that might alienate different parts of their base.
it290, isn't there somewhere else where you can get this stuff out of your system? Albeit an interesting article.
I didn't read ExCyber's article but based on your article, the explanation for those findings is quite simple. Republicans are on the defensive this election they have no reason to pick apart George W's foreign policy like John F Kerry's supporters would. Moreover I'd say half of any political party doesn't know the issues, so that level of ignorance is to be expected.
I didn't read ExCyber's article but based on your article, the explanation for those findings is quite simple. Republicans are on the defensive this election they have no reason to pick apart George W's foreign policy like John F Kerry's supporters would. Moreover I'd say half of any political party doesn't know the issues, so that level of ignorance is to be expected.
Yes, sorry about that. I think this article sums it up nicely.
However, I don't think your explanation quite works... even if it does, it's still rather troubling: it signifies that a large portion of the population is in the dark where these matters are concerned, and I for one think that is an ill omen for America's future. I find it difficult to understand how people can remain ignorant about these things when we're constantly bombarded by information from all sides. And I think most would agree that people who are less aware of the issues are more easily manipulated.
Alexvrb, I agree with what you're saying, but that's all part of the political game. I don't think that makes it right, however, and I think it's time people started changing the way the game is played. In my opinion, that has to be done by reforming (or eliminating) the electoral college, drastically reducing the political power of both major parties, and ensuring that our voting machines are secure and accurate. Steps are being taken towards those goals as we speak, but it's not going to be an easy process. It remains to be seen what sort of fiascos will occur during the November elections, but hopefully if something happens, it will be enough to shock some people into their senses.
However, I don't think your explanation quite works... even if it does, it's still rather troubling: it signifies that a large portion of the population is in the dark where these matters are concerned, and I for one think that is an ill omen for America's future. I find it difficult to understand how people can remain ignorant about these things when we're constantly bombarded by information from all sides. And I think most would agree that people who are less aware of the issues are more easily manipulated.
Alexvrb, I agree with what you're saying, but that's all part of the political game. I don't think that makes it right, however, and I think it's time people started changing the way the game is played. In my opinion, that has to be done by reforming (or eliminating) the electoral college, drastically reducing the political power of both major parties, and ensuring that our voting machines are secure and accurate. Steps are being taken towards those goals as we speak, but it's not going to be an easy process. It remains to be seen what sort of fiascos will occur during the November elections, but hopefully if something happens, it will be enough to shock some people into their senses.
Well in regards to the first article maybe its because most of the poll questions arnt black and white in fact they are very grey .
Who knows what percentage of the worlds population approve of Bush ?
Just because one group is louder than another doesnt means its right or even has bigger numbers . I have said many times though that Bushs foriegn policy is horrible but for the last few years I think we needed to take a step back and see who our enemies and allies really where .
Also I dont know how well I believe or trust a field agents report who was on the ground for 4-6 months or whatever well after a year that our strong intentions of an invasion where made .
Ill agree with these though :
Alexvrb Posted Today, 12:35 AM
I like how both sides hide the ball, and accuse the other of being blind. If truth is what you're after, there's problems on your side too. "Would Kerry have gone to war in Iraq if he was president?" is my favorite question, because they cannot deviate from the "Not like Bush" answer. Never yes, never no, because that might alienate different parts of their base.
it290 Posted Today, 05:05 AM
I think it's time people started changing the way the game is played. In my opinion, that has to be done by reforming (or eliminating) the electoral college, drastically reducing the political power of both major parties
Who knows what percentage of the worlds population approve of Bush ?
Just because one group is louder than another doesnt means its right or even has bigger numbers . I have said many times though that Bushs foriegn policy is horrible but for the last few years I think we needed to take a step back and see who our enemies and allies really where .
Also I dont know how well I believe or trust a field agents report who was on the ground for 4-6 months or whatever well after a year that our strong intentions of an invasion where made .
Ill agree with these though :
Alexvrb Posted Today, 12:35 AM
I like how both sides hide the ball, and accuse the other of being blind. If truth is what you're after, there's problems on your side too. "Would Kerry have gone to war in Iraq if he was president?" is my favorite question, because they cannot deviate from the "Not like Bush" answer. Never yes, never no, because that might alienate different parts of their base.
it290 Posted Today, 05:05 AM
I think it's time people started changing the way the game is played. In my opinion, that has to be done by reforming (or eliminating) the electoral college, drastically reducing the political power of both major parties
Sometimes the truth hurts. Remember, they're being bombarded by it, your own words. That indicates media such as internet and TV where more than half of what you get is pre-chewed. In other words, the information has already been interpreted, and not by you. I read newspapers on a semi-regular basis, and sadly very few others my age do. Mainstream newspapers (with some exceptions), even left or right leaning ones, have more information and less A-B-C stories.Originally posted by it290+Oct 22, 2004 @ 11:05 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(it290 @ Oct 22, 2004 @ 11:05 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>However, I don't think your explanation quite works... even if it does, it's still rather troubling: it signifies that a large portion of the population is in the dark where these matters are concerned, and I for one think that is an ill omen for America's future. I find it difficult to understand how people can remain ignorant about these things when we're constantly bombarded by information from all sides.[/b]
<!--QuoteBegin-it290
Alexvrb, I agree with what you're saying, but that's all part of the political game. I don't think that makes it right, however, and I think it's time people started changing the way the game is played. In my opinion, that has to be done by reforming (or eliminating) the electoral college, drastically reducing the political power of both major parties, and ensuring that our voting machines are secure and accurate. Steps are being taken towards those goals as we speak, but it's not going to be an easy process. It remains to be seen what sort of fiascos will occur during the November elections, but hopefully if something happens, it will be enough to shock some people into their senses.[/quote]We'll see. Not going to happen this election. As much as people bitch about the electoral college, it was/is a State thing, among other reasons. I don't think either party wants it gone (aside from Al "DO OVER!" Gore), so it won't go. Although, I think things will work themselves out in the long term, one way or the other. They usually do, one of the advantages of our system.
Problem with that is I don't think either party (or both) should really be in control.. neither one really embodies much of anything today, especially when you think about the diversity of cultures and ideas present in America today... or maybe you should call it the lack thereof, guess it's a tossup. (intentionally ambiguous)
... States' rights are good and all, but I've yet to see a reasonable explanation as to why those rights should be favored over those of the individual, or the ideals of democracy for that matter. Gore probably could have 'done over' a lot more than he did.
As for the newspaper thing, I'm not sure about that either. I have taken to watching the news on TV occasionally, and I'm always incredulous about the level of condescension
displayed by the newscasters.... talking about local news, BTW. But everything is pre-chewed... it's just a matter of what kind of digestive juices you prefer.
... States' rights are good and all, but I've yet to see a reasonable explanation as to why those rights should be favored over those of the individual, or the ideals of democracy for that matter. Gore probably could have 'done over' a lot more than he did.
As for the newspaper thing, I'm not sure about that either. I have taken to watching the news on TV occasionally, and I'm always incredulous about the level of condescension
displayed by the newscasters.... talking about local news, BTW. But everything is pre-chewed... it's just a matter of what kind of digestive juices you prefer.
Originally posted by it290@Oct 24, 2004 @ 11:05 AM
As for the newspaper thing, I'm not sure about that either. I have taken to watching the news on TV occasionally, and I'm always incredulous about the level of condescension
displayed by the newscasters.... talking about local news, BTW. But everything is pre-chewed... it's just a matter of what kind of digestive juices you prefer.
[post=121547]Quoted post[/post]
Oh heres a point the same report that I was making fun of earlier in this post also said (buried deep in it) that Russia and France and the head of the Un were the biggest profiteers in making of illegal deals in the oil for food scandal .
The same two countries that in the end were the reason for a Un veto and non involment in the process . Germany choose to obstain from voting the final time (they got a hard-on when they saw we wernt joking about going in) they are also high up in the list . Some reports speculate that the moneys have been funneled to insugents or terrorists against the United States .
Yet little to no press has been made of this especially when compared to the no mass weapons findings . This is somthing ive known as common sence just as well as weve found little to no unconventional currently in Iraq ...but one aspect got press time and the other didn't .
The electoral college leaves the method of determining electors to the states, so it can be reformed to a large degree whenever they feel like tackling it. Personally, I think states in which the population is high enough for it to matter should switch from winner-take-all to winning electors by a majority in each district, with the extra two votes split among the two candidates with the highest popular vote unless one has a 66% supermajority, in which case that candidate receives both.
The process that ExCyber is describing is similar to what will happen in Colorado this year if a certain proposition passes (although I believe the proposition just does the division on percentage alone, Colorado only has 9 electoral votes IIRC). If it does, the changes will be retroactive to this election, although I'm sure a lot of legal muckitymuck will occur.
I can understand the argument that individual states are more influential with the electoral system. However, clearly the politicians only focus on a small number of states, and if you're a Republican in a blue state or a Democrat in a red state, your individual vote for President really doesn't mean a thing. I think that's very definitely against the spirit of democracy. We don't need electors at all in this day and age, so why have them? I agree with Xavier on this point.
I can understand the argument that individual states are more influential with the electoral system. However, clearly the politicians only focus on a small number of states, and if you're a Republican in a blue state or a Democrat in a red state, your individual vote for President really doesn't mean a thing. I think that's very definitely against the spirit of democracy. We don't need electors at all in this day and age, so why have them? I agree with Xavier on this point.
I think a percentage split would do the job better than by districts, because redistricting is insane enough as it is. This would actually help eliminate that particular problem. Man this thread is too serious, I'm going to go laugh at Dylan's "Enormous Plight" some more.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 1K
