• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Economist meekly endorses Obama

You want more parties? Campaign finance reform. It's the only way.
 
not really but too difficult to type my thoughts on an iphone. Will try to come back to this thread when I get to a computer.
 
TexasDeac10 said:
Depressing read, and as always, a fair take.
I would disagree about their plumping for Obama's drone strikes (I dislike them not in theory, but in practice), and I am frustrated with the state of our civil liberties under Obama, but I also think they should made more hay out of Mitt's lackluster enthusiasm for various women's issues.
Click to expand...

Surely you jest. Always fair? Hardly. The Economist, as everyone else, has it's own agenda, if not in this US election, then in other questions.
 
Poor thread title. I was wondering "which economist".

Meaningful endorsement here. The Economist is an actual reputable international news source.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

There are two parties because that is the way the system is set up structurally. Considering we cannot even reform the electoral college, getting together enough support to reform the American political system is next to impossible. A more realistic option might be making the two parties more democratic and less archaic in how candidates are selected and platforms adopted.
 
If the cost of entry were not so high, new parties would spring up like weeds. But the costs are deliberately kept high so that the two parties have a monopoly, being the only two entities that can afford to effectively campaign. Make running for Senate a 100K proposition rather than a 30M dollar proposition, and you'd see more candidates.
 
PalmettoDeac19 said:
Connor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic has been one of the most persistent critics of Obama on civil liberties. Here's his rundown on why he can't support the President:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/why-i-refuse-to-vote-for-barack-obama/262861/

And his follow up piece on why Romney's no better:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/why-i-refuse-to-vote-for-mitt-romney/264330/
Click to expand...

So here's the question: if you are convinced that both of these guys suck, is it incumbent on you to withhold your vote, or should you vote for the lesser of two evils?

I plan not to vote. Townie and I talked about this last weekend, and he's convinced I'm wrong.
 
PalmettoDeac19 said:
Connor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic has been one of the most persistent critics of Obama on civil liberties. Here's his rundown on why he can't support the President:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/why-i-refuse-to-vote-for-barack-obama/262861/

And his follow up piece on why Romney's no better:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/why-i-refuse-to-vote-for-mitt-romney/264330/
Click to expand...

Here's the big, long, New Yorker piece (seriously, it's long) detailing the shameful way in which Obama's regime has mercilessly attacked whistleblowers.

It sucks. Especially since Obama was such a champion of whistleblowers in '08.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer
 
TexasDeac10 said:
So here's the question: if you are convinced that both of these guys suck, is it incumbent on you to withhold your vote, or should you vote for the lesser of two evils?

I plan not to vote. Townie and I talked about this last weekend, and he's convinced I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

If you truly feel no candidate measures up, you can always write in or abstain from that particular section of the ballot. I don't care aboutthe uneducated masses enabling the electoral college, but my highly educated friends should have their voices heard in a representative democracy, and whether or not you feel like your vote counts, matters, or what have you, it's an intellectual tragedy of the commons. Sure, your one vote is statistically insignificant, but if we shared your mentality, it would just be a dictatorship. Categorical imperative comes in to play here imho.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top