This is what results from non-compulsory voting. Politicians care less about catering to the majority of eligible voters and more about pandering to their established supporter-base, which results in a widening gulf between the two parties.


Then again, with compulsory voting like in Australia, you end up with two parties who are more or less identical and who do their best to keep election campaigns as dull and lifeless as possible, so it's swings and roundabouts.

So force people to vote? Hmm well IDK, I don't like to be forced to do anything. But it's true people would pay closer attention if they had to and that could give third party candidates a better chance instead of people just going with whatever fucking name they hear on TV. I honestly trust Americans enough to make the right choice when they have to.

I'm just against Republicans and Democrats collaborating in congress, we're supposed to have options. Just because one party says "this is right and it's stupid to think otherwise" doesn't make it right.

I absolutely agree, but I don't know enough about the alternatives to think of a better system.

Yay, I live in a red state again.

Note voting is a political act in itself. But perhaps if it was arranged that "not voting" had to be declared, and it was made at least as inconvenient as voting itself.

fuck those politicians, right?

fuck 'em.

Fucking Republicans won back the House of Representatives. Fucking disgusting.

Don't look at this as a win for the reds. Consider this to be a test- their FINAL chance, and they've got a shit-ton to fix. Typically, they'll fail, and the country will re-elect Obama, or another democrat.

Yeah. I can totally see the bright side in having a couple years of absolutely no legislation getting passed.

I've heard a rather convincing theory that the founding father's came up with this system for the express purpose of making the American government extremely impotent. It certainly seems like European countries evolve quicker.

I also heard before Obama was elected that some Republicans didn't want their party to get presidential office this term, since it was going to be a stinker. Let the Democrats take the reigns during a god-awful time, let the country forget about the previous eight years, then saunter back in to reap the rewards of the Democrats' hard work.

"Government is the problem! Vote for us and we'll prove it!"

I hate my government. Democrats waited forever to have a majority in both the House and the Senate. They got it, and then they squandered it. They used their advantage to get one half ass important bill passed, and then argued amongst themselves about the rest of what they wanted to accomplish because they were afraid it wasn't what the American people wanted. Pro tip: If your party is elected by the American people based on the things that you say said you would do, then it is those very things that the American people want you to do. And even if it isn't, Fuck 'em. You were elected. Do something. It's no fucking wonder the Republicans won back the House. They at least try to do what they set out to do. What they set out to do is disgusting and awful, but fuck, at least they do it.

http://img573.imageshack.us/img573/6...8602190910.png

When you're right, you're right.

It's not like they were getting all that much done as it was. At least this way the Dems have a real enemy to fight against and blame for their failures.

If they had retained their majority, I am 100% sure Obama would have lost the election in 2012. At least this way he has a fighting chance (as long as things improve slightly in the next two years).

It's funny. Representative Democracy is you voting in someone to represent you. You can't say anything he does is undemocratic, because you're supporting his democratic actions through representation.

Pretty much. Things would be much more chaotic here if we were a direct democracy; Americans being short-sighted and superficial and such.

What pisses me off is how the only Democrat elected in my state is just a copy of his opponent. And I don't mean this in a dumbfucked, juvenile, "ironic" way. I mean that I went to both candidates' websites, viewed their stances on the issues and then let out a sigh of disappointment at how nearly identical they were. He only won by riding the last of the momentum of Murtha's reign.

With America's population numbers? There would be zero consensus.

Yo, yo
Tally-Ho
Let's all rally for civility fetishism and the status quo.

You bitches like that? That's the new rap song I'm coming up with! It's called Fuck Bitches Consensually and have Other People Get Money for you.

That seemed to be the point of Jon Stewart's so-called "Rally to restore sanity".

Fuck Stewart and Colbert. Steadfastness in one's views should be encouraged in our society.

more wishy-washy bipartnership.

KA-POW!

Oh hey, it's already happening.

To be fair, the Dems were freaking stupid to attach DADT to another bill. It should have stood on its own merits (including the High Court decision forcing Congress to repeal it) for better or worse.

No it shouldn't, fluidity of opinions should be encouraged.

Only if there is good reason to change.

Well yeah, but the point of an argument is to find out the opinions and motives of the person you're arguing with and learn from eachother. An argument where you fight to win is little more than a row.

All too often the only learning that should occur is one way. For purely osmotic reasons.

I think that's an arrogant thing to say. at the very least it's your responsibility to learn why they're wrong and what you can do about it.

You are aware of the kind of arguments I get into though, right? I've got a very good idea.

Don't even get me started.

Fucking little, it turns out.

I'd fucking vote for him, he is quite possibly the coolest politician in the coolest named party.

http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/...tmas-no-really

This is the most amazing thing I've ever seen.