James Madison, 4th President of the USA said:
 

Remarkably prophetic, wasn't he? Some things never change.

GWB said:
 

Some things unfortunately, do change.

Indeed. "A conspiracy doesn't have to be spoken, nor the conspirators even know each other." Forgot who said that.

But that's why elections are held -- those against do have a say; that "say" is just less frequent than they'd like it to be.

I was referring to the quality of options available to voters. ;)

Ahh. And they wonder why fewer and fewer folks actually vote.

Didn't Anakin say that in 2nd or 3rd Star Wars movie? ;)

Is that why my civics teacher keeps saying 'every vote counts' ? :D

How about this one;

or this one;

or maybe this one;

From Walt Disney's Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln.

How about the NYTimes editorial here -- pulls no punches.

And is devastatingly accurate. :(

A modest election reform
 

.
Was it David Brinkley, or perhaps the old man with the biting commentary on 60 minutes who proposed the following election reform:

"I suggest we add a ballot option that says "None of the above." If that choice receives more votes than any single candidate, then they’re obliged to hold new elections -- with no candidate from the last round being allowed to participate."

.

A nice concept.

I don't know if he was the first, but Andy Rooney did say/write it.

I think a better ballot option would be "No campaign ads until October".

Once every four years I get to make a binary one-bit decision about which of two idiots I want to make the rest of my political decisions for me until next election. And we're silly enough to call that "democracy".

(Actually there are myriads of lesser idiots crooks and charlatans who get to play a part in making my political decisions for me, but somehow that doesn't appreciably improve matters much).


ETA: I am nevertheless going to vote and with great fervor. There can be quantum leaps' worth of difference between idiots, and parties thereof.

At least they're all talking about "change" this time around. So now, which one do you trust to actually do it?

This time around, the change will be enormous no matter who gets elected. That is of course, as long as we avoid another idiot that doesn't believe in evolution!
I really don't think there's one candidate that would continue the present policies. I do think that those who've said they don't believe in evolution would likely have similar policies to the current leadership, just not quite as radical.

From my perspective here in Eastern Canada where our political taste is very similar to that of New England, it would seem absolutely mind-boggling that a Republican could win the next election, so the race is between Obama and Clinton. I would vote for Obama, my wife for Clinton. Does that sum up how things really are?

That's what the pundits are saying, but I'm not at all sure that is the reality. Much too early. Iowa is not at all like the rest of the country, and the demographics of the turn out there is also likely different than either coast. I'm thinking Edwards is still in the mix on the Democratic side, though decidedly a long shot.

Republican nominee is going to have an uphill fight, but again I would not even consider ruling out the possibility. Still a long way off, much can change. Who would you support if the US is in the middle of a recession and under attack come November?

I'd still support Obama -- not because he has a lot of experience but precisely because he hasn't. I realize that can swing either way, but if he's wise, he'll choose a powerful cabinet and listen to them. The US has had at least two "newbie" presidents and the two that come to mind are Hoover and Lincoln. Hoover was a disaster, Lincoln a winner.

My wife, OTOH, would still support Hillary because she's a believer in the tried and true.

That probably sums it up in New England, but much of the south and west of the country is dominated by religious 'values voters.' Those people scare me.

Heh, I'd call our current 'fearless' leader a newbie, even today.

Me too -- a great deal, in fact -- not because of their beliefs, per se, which they have every right to practice and teach to their own, but because fundamentalists of any stripe inject a fundamental flaw into any democracy: they will use political power to impose their beliefs on the rest of us -- who for the most part don't share them.

The separation of church and state -- and equally important in my view, of church and science/technology -- is an important basis for a functioning democracy (and, in the latter case, for a functioning health care system and economy). The so-called "Dark Ages" were the result of such an imposition of "correct thought" as promulgated by the religious leaders of the times.

Huh? Lincoln was a war-monger and power-mad. He created a huge amount of strife and led the country into a war that could have been avoided. Do a little more reading about US history before you jump to conclusions like that.

I went to grade school and high school in New York City from 1943 until 1955, CAlverez -- what I said was what I was taught by NYC's school sytem. :)

I follow US politics reasonably closely - as it affects us all - and I was interested to see Hillary Clinton and "Mac is back" John McCain winning their NH primaries. This all makes for a very interesting year ahead. First woman President? First Black President? First Mormon President? The possibilities are almost endless.

The pundits are right at it, spewing their garbage. Perversely, I got a lot out of the fact that they all got it totally wrong in NH.

Democracy, in it's varying forms, is fascinating to watch. I stood for election at local and regional level in the UK, and the experience disappointed me enormously. Whilst I only speak for the UK, and moreover Portsmouth where I come from and stood, is that the average voter in my area was as thick as pigpoo. The stuff I got asked about on the doorstep (yes, in the UK, we knock every single door - phew!) was rarely anything to do with local, or regional issues. UK-wise, there is a good argument, IMO, for scrapping party politics at the the local level and getting candidates to be viewed on the basis of their manifesto and not on what party they are a member of.

On the lighter side, I was chased by dogs (and cats), had one guy so vehemently anti that I really thought he was going to have a heart attack on the doorstep (imagine the headlines: Candidate kills old man.....) and more than a few ladies who invited me "in for a coffee luvvie....". Getting sworn at was commonplace, too.

Still, an amazing experience, but glad I did not get elected, or I may not be sitting here in southern Thailand, enjoying a mid-afternoon libation and posting on Macosxhints.com!;)

I was highly amused at just how wrong the talking heads and pundits were on this one. Back to the drawing board on their methodology. It is going to be very interesting to watch this one play out... in both parties... particularly since nobody now is going to trust the polls to mean anything and voters may well turn out and vote for their candidate even though the pundits say they have no chance. This could be huge.

Clinton's winning New Hampshire was not an upset.... the pollsters just had it badly wrong from the beginning.

I don't worry about the religious right. They really don't want to push their religious agenda past two issues, abortion and same sex marriage, and the courts will decide those. I live in the South and the churches have been a part of our political lives at the state level for many,many years. They are, I guess, a special interest group and their endorsement is really no different than a labor union or women's rights group endorsing a particular candidate with the huge difference being they are tax exempt and prohibited from engaging in political activities in any significant way. Yeah, I know, and this issue has been to court in my state with no real resolution.

Now it does look like an Obama vs Clinton race even though it has been Edwards pushing the change agenda long before the other two joined in.

Do you recall a single, non-incumbent presidential candidate not talking about "change"?

Maybe you've been in the south too long then. Churches are deeply entrenched in politics there. So much so that as some one not from there, it looks a little too much like a theocracy.

I don't believe for a second that their agendas are limited to two issues either. The issues they push are designed to control peoples lives. To force people who don't share their religious beliefs into living by them. That's not what I'd call Christian.

.
I suggest we back off the religious issues, please.

-- ArcticStones

Point taken, and I am not expecting the huge changes to ever take place. Somehow, this year does seem different. If the Democrats win, I do think there will be enough support in Congress to pass a National Health Care reform package and some modest tax reform. But, I don't think energy independence is in our immediate future. I don't think they'll ever get the lobbyists out of the back rooms. And, I really see no big change in our foreign policy past working more closely with other nations.

If they achieve only 10 percent of their goals, it is a good thing and a reversal of the current trends. A little progress is still progress.

Huge changes really can't take place except under extraordinary circumstances (like 9/11/02 -- not that I agree with the response). Otherwise, people really want predictability and security. 10% would be a whopping success.