(no subject)
This was interesting. The percentage to which each presidential candidate's views match my own:
(from Christine :D)
Your Results:
89% 38%
John Edwards
Rudy Giuliani
88% 27%
Barack Obama
Tom Tancredo
87% 25%
Hillary Clinton
John McCain
83% 21%
Mike Gravel
Mitt Romney
83% 19%
Chris Dodd
Mike Huckabee
82% 12%
Dennis Kucinich
Ron Paul
80% 10%
Joe Biden
Fred Thompson
79%
Bill Richardson
I guess even though I'm registered independent, I am a democrat through and through. I just think that parties are exclusive and ineffectual. What purpose do they serve in our country, exactly, except as a means to make generalizations about someone based on an arbitrary title? Why can't politics just be about the best person for the job, period? Now there's conflict between the two parties, simply because they have different views. AND, independents can't vote in the primaries in Maine, even though 41% registered voters as of March 2007 were not affiliated with either the the democrats or republicans. (This is a number that is relatively consistent with voter affiliation across the country.) What is the purpose of a policy that bars almost half of Maine's population from letting their voices be heard? With policies like this one, it's no wonder there's such apathy when it comes to getting oneself to the polls on election day. The state is sending the message that only certain votes matter. Our country was founded on the principle that EVERY vote matters, and everyone has a say.
So I did a little research on the interweb. One site (for-president.us) was practically dripping with disdain as it answered a reader's question on the same topic. It explained the purpose of a primary, which is for each party to choose its candidate for the presidency. It claimed that states with open elections, those in which independents may vote, violate parties' rights to affiliate with a certain cause. I.e.: these states are allowing non "club" members to interfere with "club" matters.
Okay, so this guy has a point. But, it still seems to underline the shortcomings of our party system. Two parties have become so powerful that, regardless of actual membership numbers, they control U.S. politics. (Anyone else see a correlation between the party system and the current power of big corporations? Good old capitalism at work.) My question now, which may seem elementary, is whether there's an independent party, or whether registering independent merely means that one doesn't affiliate with any particular party. As it turns out, it's both. The independent party in the U.S. is a party for those who don't want to affiliate with any party. Hmm. One site for a university political activism club (yale.edu/ip/) explained that "in the Independent Party, we don't rely on any predetermined dogma for beliefs -- we encourage our members to think for themselves." So, it sounds to me like being independent means one doesn't subscribe to popular thought, instead believing only in what is right in a given instance. I can get behind that.
How many independent candidates for president are there in this election and what chance do they have of actually winning? More research: according to a wikipedia page for third party presidential candidates for the 2008 election, there are no less than 26 Independent nominees.
A blurb on the page said that independents have no need for a primary, as they are already going to be on the ballot in November. Though, as history has shown, independent candidates for president rarely gain a significant portion of the votes.
I guess my question now has changed to why there can only be one candidate from the democratic and republican parties, respectively, when all the independent hopefuls get put on the ballot? If all the democratic hopefuls were on the ballot in November, independents voting in the primaries wouldn't even be an issue. I couldn't find any additional information on this topic during a quick google search, but if anyone has some insight, I would love to hear it.
Mostly, I'm just upset that I won't be able to make sure that my candidate advances to the next round of voting. This is the first presidential election in which I will get to vote, and I'm really pumped about it. In addition, I think we have some very interesting candidates in the running, and a lot at stake politically (the Iraq war, healthcare reform, etc.). Why should I let those people who just happened to register for a party determine who I'll get to vote for in the election? The primaries basically are a good idea. But, we've created a system in which two parties are pretty much guaranteed the presidency and most of the seats in the political offices, which I feel has made them biased, unfair, and unrepresentative.
Either get rid of the primaries or allow everyone to vote, regardless of party--a policy that some states have already embraced. Come on Maine, get with it.
Other tidbits that I gleaned while researching:
-There is indeed a Marijuana party, whose sole aim is to legalize MJ, because "..it is time for the 12 million Americans who smoke marijuana on a regular basis to stop hiding their love for this plant and unite as one large body of voters to demand an end to the unconstitutional prohibition of marijuana..." (usmjparty.com)
-There's also a Thermodynamic Law Party. I tried to go to their website to find out what they were about, but pretty much couldn't understand a word. Their basic goal is to align politics with the laws of thermodynamics. One gem that I found: "the Second Law of Thermodynamics will give us insight into the course of societal decay and show us how to maximize our political energies to offset its effects." (http://zapatopi.net/tlp/platform.html) Hhhwhat? Now, I'm not sure if the entire website was mumbo jumbo to me because I was never very good at Physics, or if they're really just attention-hungry scientists trying to push some weird agenda. If you have any thoughts, please let me know.
And as an aside, who names their kid Newt?
(from Christine :D)
Your Results:
89% 38%
John Edwards
Rudy Giuliani
88% 27%
Barack Obama
Tom Tancredo
87% 25%
Hillary Clinton
John McCain
83% 21%
Mike Gravel
Mitt Romney
83% 19%
Chris Dodd
Mike Huckabee
82% 12%
Dennis Kucinich
Ron Paul
80% 10%
Joe Biden
Fred Thompson
79%
Bill Richardson
I guess even though I'm registered independent, I am a democrat through and through. I just think that parties are exclusive and ineffectual. What purpose do they serve in our country, exactly, except as a means to make generalizations about someone based on an arbitrary title? Why can't politics just be about the best person for the job, period? Now there's conflict between the two parties, simply because they have different views. AND, independents can't vote in the primaries in Maine, even though 41% registered voters as of March 2007 were not affiliated with either the the democrats or republicans. (This is a number that is relatively consistent with voter affiliation across the country.) What is the purpose of a policy that bars almost half of Maine's population from letting their voices be heard? With policies like this one, it's no wonder there's such apathy when it comes to getting oneself to the polls on election day. The state is sending the message that only certain votes matter. Our country was founded on the principle that EVERY vote matters, and everyone has a say.
So I did a little research on the interweb. One site (for-president.us) was practically dripping with disdain as it answered a reader's question on the same topic. It explained the purpose of a primary, which is for each party to choose its candidate for the presidency. It claimed that states with open elections, those in which independents may vote, violate parties' rights to affiliate with a certain cause. I.e.: these states are allowing non "club" members to interfere with "club" matters.
Okay, so this guy has a point. But, it still seems to underline the shortcomings of our party system. Two parties have become so powerful that, regardless of actual membership numbers, they control U.S. politics. (Anyone else see a correlation between the party system and the current power of big corporations? Good old capitalism at work.) My question now, which may seem elementary, is whether there's an independent party, or whether registering independent merely means that one doesn't affiliate with any particular party. As it turns out, it's both. The independent party in the U.S. is a party for those who don't want to affiliate with any party. Hmm. One site for a university political activism club (yale.edu/ip/) explained that "in the Independent Party, we don't rely on any predetermined dogma for beliefs -- we encourage our members to think for themselves." So, it sounds to me like being independent means one doesn't subscribe to popular thought, instead believing only in what is right in a given instance. I can get behind that.
How many independent candidates for president are there in this election and what chance do they have of actually winning? More research: according to a wikipedia page for third party presidential candidates for the 2008 election, there are no less than 26 Independent nominees.
A blurb on the page said that independents have no need for a primary, as they are already going to be on the ballot in November. Though, as history has shown, independent candidates for president rarely gain a significant portion of the votes.
I guess my question now has changed to why there can only be one candidate from the democratic and republican parties, respectively, when all the independent hopefuls get put on the ballot? If all the democratic hopefuls were on the ballot in November, independents voting in the primaries wouldn't even be an issue. I couldn't find any additional information on this topic during a quick google search, but if anyone has some insight, I would love to hear it.
Mostly, I'm just upset that I won't be able to make sure that my candidate advances to the next round of voting. This is the first presidential election in which I will get to vote, and I'm really pumped about it. In addition, I think we have some very interesting candidates in the running, and a lot at stake politically (the Iraq war, healthcare reform, etc.). Why should I let those people who just happened to register for a party determine who I'll get to vote for in the election? The primaries basically are a good idea. But, we've created a system in which two parties are pretty much guaranteed the presidency and most of the seats in the political offices, which I feel has made them biased, unfair, and unrepresentative.
Either get rid of the primaries or allow everyone to vote, regardless of party--a policy that some states have already embraced. Come on Maine, get with it.
Other tidbits that I gleaned while researching:
-There is indeed a Marijuana party, whose sole aim is to legalize MJ, because "..it is time for the 12 million Americans who smoke marijuana on a regular basis to stop hiding their love for this plant and unite as one large body of voters to demand an end to the unconstitutional prohibition of marijuana..." (usmjparty.com)
-There's also a Thermodynamic Law Party. I tried to go to their website to find out what they were about, but pretty much couldn't understand a word. Their basic goal is to align politics with the laws of thermodynamics. One gem that I found: "the Second Law of Thermodynamics will give us insight into the course of societal decay and show us how to maximize our political energies to offset its effects." (http://zapatopi.net/tlp/platform.html) Hhhwhat? Now, I'm not sure if the entire website was mumbo jumbo to me because I was never very good at Physics, or if they're really just attention-hungry scientists trying to push some weird agenda. If you have any thoughts, please let me know.
And as an aside, who names their kid Newt?