Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA-628
That is awful elitist of you to decide the best role others should fill in the political process.
|
I made no decision, merely stated an opinion. Another opinion of mine is that limiting your participation in the nonvoting aspect of the democratic process to writing a check requires the absolute minimum of effort.
Quote:
|
And, no, we all don't have the same amount of time. I run a small company, take care of my three young kids and have gone back to school. For me, giving money to the candidate/party of my choosing is a better use of my resources.
|
We do actually all have the same amount of time. Despite your small business and your children, there are still 168 hours in every week. Just like everyone else, you make priorities and choose to do what is important to you. All i'm saying is that if someone can't find the time to be politically active with anything other than a checkbook, than perhaps they underestimate the demands that a healthy democracy places on its citizenship. Again, that's just my opinion.
Quote:
|
It is about choice. In your effort to "make things better" you want to limit my choice. It is not up to you to decide what is a half-assed action on my part. It is up to you to play the role you want to fill. You have absolutely no right to tell me what I can and can't do, nor do you have the right to condemn the actions I choose of my own free will.
|
I don't decide whether what you do is half-assed or not, that's on you. But i can very legitimately look at something you do and tell you that i think that it is half-assed. You're right, i don't have any right to tell you what you can or can't do. That's not what i was doing. Nothing that i have said so far, aside from the one sentence about your specific time constraint issues, has been "kma-628 specific". If political parties were outlawed you can be sure that it wouldn't be solely based on the impetus of li'l ol' me. It would most likely be the result of legal action within the framework of our constitution, in which case, telling you what to do is par for the course.
Quote:
|
You know what they say about assuming, right? Just pull the "u" out of the saying and it will fit right in here.
|
Did one of the third part candidates tell you that? I must've missed out on that due the fact that the mainstream media completely ignored nearly every third party candidate in the running.
Quote:
|
Now, is media the problem here or is it the political parties as mentioned by C4?
|
Both. But i didn't bring the media up explicitly. Someone else did.
Quote:
You missed the analogy.
We were talking about elections where anyone that can enter does. California was a good example of the kind of chaos that ensues in that type of scenario.
|
I caught the analogy, and raised you a better one. Your criticism of the potential pratfalls of a party-less system is also a valid criticism of the current party system. i.e. the media focusing on the most ratings-favorable candidates rather than giving all candidates an equal amount of time.
Besides, wasn't arnold the republican candidate? Weren't both the major parties represented? How can that possibly be an example of what an election would be like in a system without parties, when both parties were very clearly represented with candidates?
In terms of "elections where anyone that can enter does", does that mean that every eligible citizen of california was on the ballot, because that seems to be what your phrase means. That was hardly the case in california. As far as i can tell, most elections allow anyone(with certain restrictions) to enter. That being the case i don't see how that aspect is even relevant to this discussion.