Politics is the Worst

[Alaris]

So, then it's basically:[I] "Rural areas should totally have their say, and we should consider helping their voice to be heard... except when we disagree with them."

Yes, but only after I move to a rural area. Until then, urban areas win.

Seriously though, I think democracy should move towards an issue-based voting system, and towards a better focus towards solutions that are more inclusive rather than just popular. And while at it, make it much more science-based (or fact-based anyway).

I'm not entirely sure how that could be achieved.

[Gorani]

According to the latest polls, 13% or Germans would give their vote to the Pirate Party, an accumulation of people that has no idea what their own party program is and how to take a stand on important political issues. Sorry, just being against ACTA is no political program.
Looks like they gather a lot of "protest voters" that just want to show the finger to established political parties.

[RD]

Voting for or against money would go around 50% by chance, which is what you'd expect if people didn't take money into account, i.e., are not corrupt. But that means that there are still no people that expressively try to undo the vote-for-money trend.

This makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up. I don't think any candidates should actively vote against money; that's just as bad. They should vote how the people they are elected to represent feel or in the best interest of those people.

I agree an interest-based system would certainly have its advantages, though I have no idea how that might play out. It would be nice if they looked at stuff like corporate personhood or same-sex marriage and just looked at the letter of the law without taking personal preference / money into the equation. "It doesn't matter if X% of the country doesn't want same-sex marriages because there's no legal reason to deny it."

[Giggles]

Ok, here's some more cool stuff for you guys.

CISPA Sponsor Mike Rogers Says Protests Are Mere 'Turbulence'

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...-landing.shtml

from a comment about the affair from somewhere else.

So much for the idea that politicians effected the will of the people. He's been working with CORPORATIONS to make sure that CORPORATIONS don't have any problem with the LEGISLATION that is put upon THE CITIZENS.

[Alaris]

I just realized thanks to my fiancee that 9/10 of top voters for the money are republicans (the other is independent) and the bottom 10 are democrats.

Also, I wanted to add that unless you have people voting at less than 50%, the average of all voters will be towards where the money is. And if the money is put on controversial issues mainly, that means money gets results.

[RD]

Oh, she's right: I overlooked that Independent.

That article, Giggles, is abhorrent.

EDIT: I'm almost done with this book on the 1920s... The latest chapter seems to indicate that the Republican party was a lot more left at the time... Now I'm trying to find a book about the history of our two parties to read next...

[RD]

MSNBC was on at the gym (as usual) last night and that god awful Ed Show was on. They were mocking some guy (probably a Republican, knowing MSNBC) who forget the last page of his speech. They didn't talk about anything he said, just the fact that he had left the last page of his speech somewhere and had to, embarrassingly, go get it. Trash TV.

So stupid how these people act like little kids and are somehow respected as journalists and/or politicians.

[Zalis]

Democrats don't ever look stupid in public, are above human error, and it's why we should vote for them. (unless they're John Edwards, in which case they're almost the victim in their own cheating-on-their-cancer-wife sex scandal)

That seems to be the vibe on certain channels, at least. Nice to see someone recognizing that the Slate....er, slant goes both ways.

[Alaris]

As much as I like the Daily Show, it's entertainment and I think not a good place to learn about the positive aspects of each candidate. Being flawless in public is good, but certainly not the most important thing to have as a president. I'd sooner vote for someone who is smart and not corrupt, even if he's a bit goofy in public.

[RD]

It's ridiculous. I hate MSNBC only marginally less than I hate FOX News; the only reason they are not equal is because MSNBC doesn't really make stuff up the way FOX does. But the kind of bias either station exhibits is disgusting. At best, it's not really journalism. And it can create some pretty silly situations where you just end up contradicting yourself (as The Daily Show often points out).

I don't belong to a political party because I find both to be ridiculous. It just so happens that Democrats, more often than not, more closely align with my outlook. A friend of mine says "Being an Independent today basically just makes you a Democrat."
I would absolutely vote for a Republican candidate. Probably not in the presidential election because that's become such a sh** show, I wouldn't really trust any candidate who is willing to run under that party banner, but I'd totally vote for one in local elections if I agreed with their policies.

EDIT: On the goofy thing, as someone who often sticks his foot in his mouth or does something kind of clumsy or absent-minded, I find it absurd to mock someone for stuff like that. That's not how adults conduct themselves. Giggling about it is one thing, but putting someone down is entirely another.