"As the dust settles" What should Obama do first? [Vote!]

How do you feel about the next four years?

Optimistic	55.6%	[ 79 ]
Pessimistic	12.0%	[ 17 ]
Nuetral	15.5%	[ 22 ]
Wish independents had more sway	9.2%	[ 13 ]
He's black isn't he?	1.4%	[ 2 ]
Huh? ... Wut?	6.3%	[ 9 ]
Total Votes:			[ 142 ]

[President Von Schweetz]

I'm guessing that you guys heard about Jill Stein already, so, here's a fun question! What do you guys think about the third party candidates and about our current party system in general? Do you think that the barriers to the debates should be lifted so that Americans are given a more adequate view on what it is they could actually be voting for? Do you think that the electoral college should be removed and our elections should be based purely on the popular vote? Do you think that the current party system needs to be revamped?

What do you guys think? whee

[KazekaGezz]

Obama

[S.Lyger]

Clarion Raze

I'm guessing that you guys heard about Jill Stein already, so, here's a fun question! What do you guys think about the third party candidates and about our current party system in general? Do you think that the barriers to the debates should be lifted so that Americans are given a more adequate view on what it is they could actually be voting for? Do you think that the electoral college should be removed and our elections should be based purely on the popular vote? Do you think that the current party system needs to be revamped?

What do you guys think? whee

I think it would be good for at least one more party to be able to get some play within the elections, but the problem is the system is already so polarized between democrat and republican.

Not sure about the electoral college because we have to accept the fact that all people aren't informed. Most are actually dangerously uninformed, so to think that we'd really be at the mercy of what the majority of Americans can be convinced of, scares me a little..

I'd like to see a system revamp but hopefully not until after the economy has been aloud to let this recession run its course and pass. Perhaps we can get back to a surplus like we had during the Clinton years, then I think we could work on the system. If Citizens United stands though, independents will never be able to raise enough individual to compete with two of the larger parties [opinion]

hbu?

[S.Lyger]

KazekaGezz

Obama

be sure to cast your vote in the poll 3nodding

[President Von Schweetz]

S.Lyger

I think it would be good for at least one more party to be able to get some play within the elections, but the problem is the system is already so polarized between democrat and republican.

Not sure about the electoral college because we have to accept the fact that all people aren't informed. Most are actually dangerously uninformed, so to think that we'd really be at the mercy of what the majority of Americans can be convinced of, scares me a little..

I'd like to see a system revamp but hopefully not until after the economy has been aloud to let this recession run its course and pass. Perhaps we can get back to a surplus like we had during the Clinton years, then I think we could work on the system. If Citizens United stands though, independents will never be able to raise enough individual to compete with two of the larger parties [opinion]

hbu?

I find the electoral college system to be deplorable. It's just a way of pretending that the American people have a voice, and then actually being like: nope, just kidding. I think that if we tell people that they need to get out and vote, and we tell people that their voice is going to be heard, and we tell people that if they don't vote, they can't complain, their vote should actually matter--should actually amount to something. I think that the electoral college needs to be removed completely, and the popular vote should dictate elections. All that the electoral college does is still the small amount of power that the average citizen actually has.

I want to remove the party system all together. I am an independent voter for a reason. (; I would explain exactly what I want to be done about it, but I'm multi-tasking, and it's a bit lengthy. Plus, I agree that we need to reach a more settled economic and social situation/era before it is even attempted.

[S.Lyger]

Clarion Raze

S.Lyger

I think it would be good for at least one more party to be able to get some play within the elections, but the problem is the system is already so polarized between democrat and republican.

Not sure about the electoral college because we have to accept the fact that all people aren't informed. Most are actually dangerously uninformed, so to think that we'd really be at the mercy of what the majority of Americans can be convinced of, scares me a little..

I'd like to see a system revamp but hopefully not until after the economy has been aloud to let this recession run its course and pass. Perhaps we can get back to a surplus like we had during the Clinton years, then I think we could work on the system. If Citizens United stands though, independents will never be able to raise enough individual to compete with two of the larger parties [opinion]

hbu?

I find the electoral college system to be deplorable. It's just a way of pretending that the American people have a voice, and then actually being like: nope, just kidding. I think that if we tell people that they need to get out and vote, and we tell people that their voice is going to be heard, and we tell people that if they don't vote, they can't complain, their vote should actually matter--should actually amount to something. I think that the electoral college needs to be removed completely, and the popular vote should dictate elections. All that the electoral college does is still the small amount of power that the average citizen actually has.

I want to remove the party system all together. I am an independent voter for a reason. (; I would explain exactly what I want to be done about it, but I'm multi-tasking, and it's a bit lengthy. Plus, I agree that we need to reach a more settled economic and social situation/era before it is even attempted.

Yay we have our first independent smile

But yea I hear you, I'm not overly familiar with the process involving the electoral college, what do they do? I kinda thought the popular vote had some effect on what they did no?

Also I feel like with the party system, its polarization has created cachement groups of both reps and dems which are different from the mainstream. Though I'm not sure if these groups could be swayed to a third party because their own party appeals to enough of what they want, (or in some cases think they want lol). I'm referring of course to people who vote against their own interests... Like women and non-rich people that vote republican.

[President Von Schweetz]

S.Lyger

Yay we have our first independent smile

But yea I hear you, I'm not overly familiar with the process involving the electoral college, what do they do? I kinda thought the popular vote had some effect on what they did no?

Also I feel like with the party system, its polarization has created cachement groups of both reps and dems which are different from the mainstream. Though I'm not sure if these groups could be swayed to a third party because their own party appeals to enough of what they want, (or in some cases think they want lol). I'm referring of course to people who vote against their own interests... Like women and non-rich people that vote republican.

Aaah! You're totally distracting me from what I told myself I was supposed to be doing! xD

Basically, how I personally understand the electoral college system is that it basically assesses the amount of popular vote per state, then decides which candidate the state favors and casts in the vote(s--varying by state, population, etc.) for that candidate. What this does is pretty much nullify your vote if you aren't in a swing state. If you're in a blue state and you vote red, then your vote doesn't carry as much weight. If you're in a red state and you vote blue, your vote doesn't carry as much weight. That's one of the big reasons why swing states are so important, and why your vote really does matter if you're in a swing state. If it was reduced down to the purely popular vote, then everyone's vote would hold equal weight, and it wouldn't matter if you were in a red or blue or swing state, because you would know that your vote is actually going straight to your candidate. Right now, that really isn't the case. Here's a more in-depth look at the electoral college system, so you can draw your own conclusions about it. (: But, just to put it in perspective, four times in the past a candidate has won the popular vote, but not won the presidency.

[S.Lyger]

Clarion Raze

S.Lyger

Yay we have our first independent smile

But yea I hear you, I'm not overly familiar with the process involving the electoral college, what do they do? I kinda thought the popular vote had some effect on what they did no?

Also I feel like with the party system, its polarization has created cachement groups of both reps and dems which are different from the mainstream. Though I'm not sure if these groups could be swayed to a third party because their own party appeals to enough of what they want, (or in some cases think they want lol). I'm referring of course to people who vote against their own interests... Like women and non-rich people that vote republican.

Aaah! You're totally distracting me from what I told myself I was supposed to be doing! xD

Basically, how I personally understand the electoral college system is that it basically assesses the amount of popular vote per state, then decides which candidate the state favors and casts in the vote(s--varying by state, population, etc.) for that candidate. What this does is pretty much nullify your vote if you aren't in a swing state. If you're in a blue state and you vote red, then your vote doesn't carry as much weight. If you're in a red state and you vote blue, your vote doesn't carry as much weight. That's one of the big reasons why swing states are so important, and why your vote really does matter if you're in a swing state. If it was reduced down to the purely popular vote, then everyone's vote would hold equal weight, and it wouldn't matter if you were in a red or blue or swing state, because you would know that your vote is actually going straight to your candidate. Right now, that really isn't the case. Here's a more in-depth look at the electoral college system, so you can draw your own conclusions about it. (: But, just to put it in perspective, four times in the past a candidate has won the popular vote, but not won the presidency.

Oh wow... I didn't know it was like that, makes sense though given how they cover it with the swing states and all that. It seems like it simplifies the process, and tries to balance the general needs statewide instead of each individual's personal feelings. Which in a way I kinda agree with because ya know people are idiots, they can be mislead and run with facts that aren't reality at all with a little prodding. Though I think its an idealistic perspective when we have like 5 different people running and no polarized parties and sole reliance on popular vote. In theory it seems fair and balanced but I worry how that would change things, how many more people's votes would count that rly are meaningless ya know?

[Spline Reticulator]

None of your poll options fit me. I am voting for Gary Johnson. I am a libertarian-leaning independent.

[S.Lyger]

Spline Reticulator

None of your poll options fit me. I am voting for Gary Johnson. I am a libertarian-leaning independent.

Yea I know I made the poll early this morning, I wasn't even considering the options for them, and eventually [maybe after i get a good sample size] I'll redo it. I meant as far as the discussions though, aside from independent voters themselves, theres very little knowledge of the other parties within mainstream political coverage.

[iRawrRawr]

I don't know what all the talk is about unemployment dropping. According to the BLS, unemployment was at 7.8% when Obama took office, and now it's at 7.8%. If you want to look at how many jobs were created, then state how many were lost too... And unemployment reached it's record peak at 10% during Obama's presidency. Now, I'm not saying it's necessarily his fault, but you can't say he's lowered unemployment without saying it was also at a record breaking high during his term (except for the Great Depression). I don't think it's fair to say he's done well in creating jobs... In an unemployment rate chart, the higher the number the worse, or did we not go to school and learn how to reat charts and graphs?

EDIT: Sorry if this is off-topic now...

[S.Lyger]

iRawrRawr

I don't know what all the talk is about unemployment dropping. According to the BLS, unemployment was at 7.8% when Obama took office, and now it's at 7.8%. If you want to look at how many jobs were created, then state how many were lost too... And unemployment reached it's record peak at 10% during Obama's presidency. Now, I'm not saying it's necessarily his fault, but you can't say he's lowered unemployment without saying it was also at a record breaking high during his term (except for the Great Depression). I don't think it's fair to say he's done well in creating jobs... In an unemployment rate chart, the higher the number the worse, or did we not go to school and learn how to reat charts and graphs?

Well your kind of making the point there. It was at 10% now its at 7.8%, I think we can safely assume it was at 10% when it was largely in part because of the recession caused by Bush... So in that regard, part of his recovery has been lowering the unemployment rate caused by the recession and adding more jobs per month instead of losing them as was the case just after Bush left office.

[Spline Reticulator]

Clarion Raze

I'm guessing that you guys heard about Jill Stein already, so, here's a fun question! What do you guys think about the third party candidates and about our current party system in general? Do you think that the barriers to the debates should be lifted so that Americans are given a more adequate view on what it is they could actually be voting for? Do you think that the electoral college should be removed and our elections should be based purely on the popular vote? Do you think that the current party system needs to be revamped?

What do you guys think? whee

Yeah. It's sad what happened to Jill Stein. Similar things have happened to other candidates in recent election cycles (Michael Badnarik and Ralph Nader come to mind). I think the two-party system is terrible for American politics because they are so entrenched and have such a stranglehold at this point. "Third-parties" inject additional issues and increase the breadth of political discussion by saying things that neither of the two main parties' candidates are addressing. However, they receive little to no media coverage, and the majority of Americans don't even know they exist. Despite polling at about 5% nationally, most Americans have never heard of Gary Johnson (I've seen poll estimates that between 60 and 75% of voters have not heard of him).

I do think that the barriers to the debates should be eased, although not completely disregarded. Florida has 12 people on the presidential ballot for November, some of whom are only on the ballot in Florida and not in any other state. Such minor candidates do not need to be in televised debates, but if a candidate meets the Constitutional requirements and is on enough state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning the presidency, I think that should be enough. If this were the standard, we would have 4 candidates in the debates (Obama, Romney, Johnson, and Stein). That's quite manageable. Requiring that a candidate poll at 15% in 5 major polls is quite unrealistic when they don't even get any media coverage, and they aren't included in the polls in the first place. How are you supposed to get 15% if you're not even mentioned? It also doesn't help that the major parties get government help for their campaigns, while the minor parties do not receive any kind of funds.

As for the electoral college, I understand the arguments for removing it, but I really have no problem with it existing. That doesn't seem like a huge issue in my opinion. I'm more concerned about people who do not really fit into either the Republican or Democrat mold. They really have very little chance to cast a meaningful vote.

Here's a video about the Commission on Presidential Debates for anyone who is interested. The Commission was started by the heads of the Republicans and Democrats after the League of Women Voters refused to go along with a drafted agreement between the R and D candidates prior to the 1988 election. In 1992, Ross Perot was in the debates and ended up getting 19% of the vote (and at one point, he actually was leading the Rep and Dem candidates in the polls). After that near-disaster, the Commission raised the requirements to be included in the debates.



If you'd like to see the agreement between Obama and Romney for this cycle, it was apparently leaked:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/110073567/The-2012-Debates-Memorandum-of-Understanding-Between-the-Obama-and-Romney-Campaigns#download

[iRawrRawr]

S.Lyger

Well your kind of making the point there. It was at 10% now its at 7.8%, I think we can safely assume it was at 10% when it was largely in part because of the recession caused by Bush... So in that regard, part of his recovery has been lowering the unemployment rate caused by the recession and adding more jobs per month instead of losing them as was the case just after Bush left office.

I would agree to that in some regard... we always hit economic depression during presidential transitions. But at the same time I can't necessarily give Obama the credit for the unemployment rate falling again. Sure, he may have done some things, but based on my personal opinion and research he didn't do much in the grand scheme. Sure, he may have done more if his bills were actually passed by Congress, but they weren't. I honestly feel it's been the blatant overturn of the economy growing again that has helped lower the unemployment rate. What comes up, must come down. But of course, I am not arguing Obama has full power to take credit over that, because people were blaming him for the unemployment rate being high, so he has equal power to claim it whether or not it was due to his actions. I personally just don't feel he did the nation a favor. His policy in some regard almost mimics FDR's new deal program. Expensive, yet what the nation needed at the time.

[S.Lyger]

Spline Reticulator

Clarion Raze

I'm guessing that you guys heard about Jill Stein already, so, here's a fun question! What do you guys think about the third party candidates and about our current party system in general? Do you think that the barriers to the debates should be lifted so that Americans are given a more adequate view on what it is they could actually be voting for? Do you think that the electoral college should be removed and our elections should be based purely on the popular vote? Do you think that the current party system needs to be revamped?

What do you guys think? whee

Yeah. It's sad what happened to Jill Stein. Similar things have happened to other candidates in recent election cycles (Michael Badnarik and Ralph Nader come to mind). I think the two-party system is terrible for American politics because they are so entrenched and have such a stranglehold at this point. "Third-parties" inject additional issues and increase the breadth of political discussion by saying things that neither of the two main parties' candidates are addressing. However, they receive little to no media coverage, and the majority of Americans don't even know they exist. Despite polling at about 5% nationally, most Americans have never heard of Gary Johnson (I've seen poll estimates that between 60 and 75% of voters have not heard of him).

I do think that the barriers to the debates should be eased, although not completely disregarded. Florida has 12 people on the presidential ballot for November, some of whom are only on the ballot in Florida and not in any other state. Such minor candidates do not need to be in televised debates, but if a candidate meets the Constitutional requirements and is on enough state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning the presidency, I think that should be enough. If this were the standard, we would have 4 candidates in the debates (Obama, Romney, Johnson, and Stein). That's quite manageable. It also doesn't help that the major parties get government help for their campaigns, while the minor parties do not receive any kind of funds.

As for the electoral college, I understand the arguments for removing it, but I really have no problem with it existing. That doesn't seem like a huge issue in my opinion. I'm more concerned about people who do not really fit into either the Republican or Democrat mold. They really have very little chance to cast a meaningful vote.

Yea I can honestly say I'd never heard of any of them, I've heard Ralph Nader's name but otherwise knew nothing at all. That being said I feel like the two party system does constrict what actually gets discussed. Issues like gun control and stuff like that which is over politicized and is used to incite fear against those freedoms, so generally nobody brings it up. It makes sense that people should hear from more than just the main candidates.

On the other hand I worry, I mean with 2 candidates and 2 very polarized parties, both of which I think have made it abundantly clear what they stand for. And yet there are undecideds within the party's respective bases, there are low information voters who are so easy to sway. I don't know if I'd want to trust ALL of Americans with making that distinction without all of the polarization. I mean information is so distorted in the various medias on both sides, obviously more so in fox news and other stuff like that. But it gets to the point where if there were three or four competing networks and or organizations, it might do more harm than good ya know?