Election Methodologies Discussion WARNING: HERE BE DRAGONS!!!

[jfrazierjr]

I would honestly like to see congress open up and have open votes online where any american legal to vote, could vote on issues that congress goes through.

that way, the ordinary people have even more of a say in what they feel is important, they can vote their opinion on whichever topics they feel influenced by.

Errrr, I believe that to be a good idea in concept, but a horrible idea in implementation. The problem is that bills are not just as simple as "Raise taxes on the rich", "cut taxes for everyone", etc. Pretty much every bill comes up with like: "cut taxes on everyone, but every forth person gets a tax increase, and every 9th person gets shot". Likewise, how many people would vote no to the financial bailout package because they percieve it as a way to save "rich" bankers. Granted, I did not support the bailout package, but it had no basis in either political affiliation, nor with class hatred against millionaires. Frankly, I want the government to have less hand in my pockets and life, not more.

Political adds a such a crock... "my opponent voted no for bill xyz", however, no one explains that the person voted no to the bill that would save the endangered doodo bird from extinction because it would cost 20000 people their jobs. It's kind of like asking someone if they would be willing to be shot in the foot for $1000. Very few people would willingly let themselves be shot, but many would for money.

On the same note, the ignorance of many people to vote one way or another based nothing more than liking how a candidate looks or who their parents voted for or what they say they want to do without looking at exactly what they have done in the past is frightening. To be honest, in my adult life, I have never voted FOR any one particular person for President, I have always had to vote against another. For me, it has always been the lesser of two evils, I have held my nose as I marked tbe ballot.

I find it disheartning to see things like the Tonight Show's Jaywalking where Leno walks around asking various people questions and just how ignorant the people are. It's just sad that people who have no idea about history, economics, taxation, etc could in good conciense vote.

Please note, none of what I say should be taken in an inflamitory way. I truely am sad to see people vote for a particular candidate without knowing and understanding what the candidate stands for regardless of political affiliation. I would much rather those people, Republican and Democrats just stay home. Or better yet, look beyond the hype and your parents preferences and investigate the issues, ALL the issues and make an informed vote on things that will help your town, county, state, country, and not just as those that you percieve will help yourself. To understand what I mean by that, let's go back to my gun arguement. How many people would take $10000 if it meant someone ELSE, whom you do not know, had to be shot in the foot? Suddenly, when it's not you, people tend to become a lot more willing to let someone else get the shaft.

[CC_JAR]

Errrr, I believe that to be a good idea in concept, but a horrible idea in implementation. The problem is that bills are not just as simple as "Raise taxes on the rich", "cut taxes for everyone", etc. Pretty much every bill comes up with like: "cut taxes on everyone, but every forth person gets a tax increase, and every 9th person gets shot". Likewise, how many people would vote no to the financial bailout package because they percieve it as a way to save "rich" bankers. Granted, I did not support the bailout package, but it had no basis in either political affiliation, nor with class hatred against millionaires. Frankly, I want the government to have less hand in my pockets and life, not more.

Political adds a such a crock... "my opponent voted no for bill xyz", however, no one explains that the person voted no to the bill that would save the endangered doodo bird from extinction because it would cost 20000 people their jobs. It's kind of like asking someone if they would be willing to be shot in the foot for $1000. Very few people would willingly let themselves be shot, but many would for money.

On the same note, the ignorance of many people to vote one way or another based nothing more than liking how a candidate looks or who their parents voted for or what they say they want to do without looking at exactly what they have done in the past is frightening. To be honest, in my adult life, I have never voted FOR any one particular person for President, I have always had to vote against another. For me, it has always been the lesser of two evils, I have held my nose as I marked tbe ballot.

I find it disheartning to see things like the Tonight Show's Jaywalking where Leno walks around asking various people questions and just how ignorant the people are. It's just sad that people who have no idea about history, economics, taxation, etc could in good conciense vote.

Please note, none of what I say should be taken in an inflamitory way. I truely am sad to see people vote for a particular candidate without knowing and understanding what the candidate stands for regardless of political affiliation. I would much rather those people, Republican and Democrats just stay home. Or better yet, look beyond the hype and your parents preferences and investigate the issues, ALL the issues and make an informed vote on things that will help your town, county, state, country, and not just as those that you percieve will help yourself. To understand what I mean by that, let's go back to my gun arguement. How many people would take $10000 if it meant someone ELSE, whom you do not know, had to be shot in the foot? Suddenly, when it's not you, people tend to become a lot more willing to let someone else get the shaft.

I'm not sure, but you may have misinterpreted what I was trying to say.
Now true, I believe most people should research anyone/thing they are voting for, or not vote if they have no idea (and are just going on preference).
But what I was trying to say was that anyone that felt the urge to vote on bills that pass through congress, could have their say about it, rather than just calling/writing our senators like it is now.

And when it comes to media.. my views on that may be a little extreme (heh, yeah little) But I would like it, if the media would either shut down for the 3-4 months before elections, or just keep their opinions out of it.
There is too much 'telling us what we do/n't want to hear, and too little telling us where they stand, and what they'll really do in office'.

[Karro]

I'm not sure, but you may have misinterpreted what I was trying to say.
Now true, I believe most people should research anyone/thing they are voting for, or not vote if they have no idea (and are just going on preference).
But what I was trying to say was that anyone that felt the urge to vote on bills that pass through congress, could have their say about it, rather than just calling/writing our senators like it is now.

And when it comes to media.. my views on that may be a little extreme (heh, yeah little) But I would like it, if the media would either shut down for the 3-4 months before elections, or just keep their opinions out of it.
There is too much 'telling us what we do/n't want to hear, and too little telling us where they stand, and what they'll really do in office'.

If the Media shut down during the 3-4 months before elections, how would we research anyone/thing before voting on it? The media is the means by which information is disseminated. (Opinion masquerading as Media Journalism is a different problem, and one that is probably intractable.)

Furthermore, if the Media shut down during the 3-4 months of an election, how would we be able to tell when those who are running for office are lying to us? The fact-checking alone is an invaluable service.

The democratic process breaks down completely with a free and independent news source.

Instead, I think, at least in America, Americans should seek out a variety of news sources, to ensure that they are getting at the facts, and not just reading Opinion Masquerading as Journalism.

[Edit] In your last sentence, it sounds like your problem is the depth and breadth (or lack thereof) of the Candidates' campaigns, statements, and campaign promises. Again, this has little to do with the Media. Ideally, an independent news media only reports what the Candidates are saying. Without a national news media, a candidate can go to one place and make one fatuous promise or statement, and then to another and make a completely different, even contradictory statement, allowing him/her to be elected on a fractured foundation built on lies and/or intentional deceit. We wouldn't hear a word of what they'd "really do in office" if we didn't have a national news media that had the ability to fact check the candidates and call them out when they are being deceitful. (I believe this is largely what brought down McCain's campaign--as you say too little talking about policies and specific plans, and too much... well... I'll let you decide what there was too much of.)

Generally, that's why we have the Debates (which are disseminated via the Media)... it's a forum that forces the candidates to talk about the issues and debate specific policies.

[CC_JAR]

If the Media shut down during the 3-4 months before elections, how would we research anyone/thing before voting on it? The media is the means by which information is disseminated. (Opinion masquerading as Media Journalism is a different problem, and one that is probably intractable.)

Furthermore, if the Media shut down during the 3-4 months of an election, how would we be able to tell when those who are running for office are lying to us? The fact-checking alone is an invaluable service.

The democratic process breaks down completely with a free and independent news source.

Instead, I think, at least in America, Americans should seek out a variety of news sources, to ensure that they are getting at the facts, and not just reading Opinion Masquerading as Journalism.

[Edit] In your last sentence, it sounds like your problem is the depth and breadth (or lack thereof) of the Candidates' campaigns, statements, and campaign promises. Again, this has little to do with the Media. Ideally, an independent news media only reports what the Candidates are saying. Without a national news media, a candidate can go to one place and make one fatuous promise or statement, and then to another and make a completely different, even contradictory statement, allowing him/her to be elected on a fractured foundation built on lies and/or intentional deceit. We wouldn't hear a word of what they'd "really do in office" if we didn't have a national news media that had the ability to fact check the candidates and call them out when they are being deceitful. (I believe this is largely what brought down McCain's campaign--as you say too little talking about policies and specific plans, and too much... well... I'll let you decide what there was too much of.)

Generally, that's why we have the Debates (which are disseminated via the Media)... it's a forum that forces the candidates to talk about the issues and debate specific policies.

Ok, I was being a little over-exaggerative there.. more truthfully of what I'ld like/ what I meant is,

The media's affiliations should have nothing to do with how they cover the candidates and the topics they cover.

If you noticed in this election, everytime they talked to/about Obama, they held him up on a pedestal (oh god, it's so historic, the first black prresident! ...or possibly female vp..) and everytime they talked to/about McCain they would grill him on all the tough questions!

Where were those tough questions for Obama!? I watched the debates, neither candidate ever gave a clear answer to any question asked!

[jfrazierjr]

Ok, guys.... let's not get into candidate bashing. The other admins were nice enough to leave this topic open, but it will be closed off if there are any more remarks about a particular candidate or party.

[Karro]

Ok, guys.... let's not get into candidate bashing. The other admins were nice enough to leave this topic open, but it will be closed off if there are any more remarks about a particular candidate or party.

Sorry... don't mean to let my political affiliations show too clearly (I consider myself one of those centrist Americans I touted earlier).

[CC_JAR]

Ok, guys.... let's not get into candidate bashing. The other admins were nice enough to leave this topic open, but it will be closed off if there are any more remarks about a particular candidate or party.

sorry about that, I understand.. I just get a little carried away at times..

[Karro]

Ok, I was being a little over-exaggerative there.. more truthfully of what I'ld like/ what I meant is,

The media's affiliations should have nothing to do with how they cover the candidates and the topics they cover.

If you noticed in this election, everytime they talked to/about Obama, they held him up on a pedestal (oh god, it's so historic, the first black prresident! ...or possibly female vp..) and everytime they talked to/about McCain they would grill him on all the tough questions!

Where were those tough questions for Obama!? I watched the debates, neither candidate ever gave a clear answer to any question asked!

I respectfully disagree that there were not some very hard questions asked of both candidates. Though I had mostly made my own decision relatively early, some of the hard questions asked made me second guess and decide for myself whether those issues brought up were ones I was concerned about. It's up to us as voters to decide whether we think those questions were answered appropriately.

Anyway, I agree that the media's affiliations oughtn't enter into their reporting. However, as I said, I think that's an intractable problem, since human beings by their very nature are biased beings. That being said, one means of combatting the problem is by increasing transparency and disclosure in the media (i.e. the media fully disclosing whom they support and why, so that media consumers can judge the news they receive via that media through the filter of that knowledge). The problem with this, however, is it violates the principle of a secret ballot by exposing the voting paterns of those in the media.

On the other hand, it is relatively easy to discern the general political leanings of any given media outlet, I think. And this fact has contributed to another problem: people on the right get their news predominately from news sources that have a rightward leaning reporting, and people on the left get their news from leftward leaning media. The result is a politically segregated information gap, where each side is only informed by their own echo chambers. I actually make it a personal pursuit to seek out news and ideas from the opposite side--which actually lead me to, at least temporarily, change my political leanings during this election cycle--but this isn't the kind of thing you can mandate... You can't force the media to be completely unbiased, really, and you can't force voters either to inform themselves or, when doing so, to inform themselves in an unbiased fashion.