Stop Voting For Nincompoops

[FearlessFreep]

Stop Voting For Nincompoops

short excerpt

...
In a recent special election for California governor, the usual lock of the party structure broke down - they neglected to block that special case, and so you could get in with 65 signatures and $3500. As a result there were 135 candidates.

With 135 candidates, one might have thought there would be an opportunity for some genuine voter choice - a lower barrier to entry, which would create a chance to elect an exceptionally competent governor. However, the media immediately swung into action and decided that only a tiny fraction of these candidates would be allowed to get any publicity. Which ones? Why, the ones who already had name recognition! Those, after all, were the candidates who were likely to win, so those were the ones which the media reported on.

Amazingly, the media collectively exerted such tremendous power, in nearly perfect coordination, without deliberate intention (conspiracies are generally much less necessary than believed). They genuinely thought, I think, that they were reporting the news rather than making it. Did it even occur to them that the entire business was self-referential? Did anyone write about that aspect? With a coordinated action, the media could have chosen any not-completely-pathetic candidate to report as the "front-runner", and their reporting would thereby have been correct.

The technical term for this is Keynesian beauty contest, wherein everyone tries to vote for whoever they think most people will vote for.

If Arnold Schwarzenegger (4,206,284 votes) had been as unable to get publicity as Logan Clements (274 votes), perhaps because the media believed (in uncoordinated unison) that no action-movie hero could be taken seriously as a candidate, then Arnold Schwarzenegger would not have been a "serious candidate".

In effect, Arnold Schwarzenegger was appointed Governor of California by the media. The case is notable because usually it's the party structure that excludes candidates, and the party structure's power has a formal basis that does not require voter complicity. The power of the media to appoint Arnold Schwarzenegger governor derived strictly from voters following what someone told them was the trend. If the voters had ignored the media telling them who the front-runner was, and decided their initial pick of "serious candidates" based on, say, the answers to a questionnaire, then the media would have had no power.
...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

People get the government they deserve.
- By not voting
- By picking "lesser of 2 evils" rather than looking beyond the "big 2"
- By not bothering to really research people or issues and voting based on sound bites and tv ads or what their friend said.
- By nt getting involved in the whole process
- By not holding those elected to their promises

People are ****ing stupid at times, and need to wake up, pay attention, get off their asses and get involved.

 

[Kacey]

People get the government they deserve.
- By not voting
- By picking "lesser of 2 evils" rather than looking beyond the "big 2"
- By not bothering to really research people or issues and voting based on sound bites and tv ads or what their friend said.
- By nt getting involved in the whole process
- By not holding those elected to their promises

People are ****ing stupid at times, and need to wake up, pay attention, get off their asses and get involved.

I can't really argue with any of the above.

Other issues that need to be addressed:
- the electoral college (presidential election only) and how the need for it has changed over the years
- holding elected and appointed officials responsible for enforcing the laws that already exist, instead of passing new ones that are, likewise, not enforced
- the inability of anyone who is not richly - or very heavily backed by someone or some group with money - to be elected, no matter how otherwise qualified
- the stranglehold the 2 party system (which is not in the Constitution) has on the electorate; this also feeds into the problems with the electoral college; it's hard to vote for an independent knowing that s/he cannot be elected to the presidency under the current electoral college/two party system
- the general lack of responsibility displayed by the voting public, including, but definitely not limited to, low voter turnout.

 

[tellner]

If people stopped voting for nincompoops the most entertaining spectator sport in the world just wouldn't be as much fun. Political consultants would be out of a job, and most standup comedians and cartoonists would be out of a job.

 

[FearlessFreep]

If people stopped voting for nincompoops the most entertaining spectator sport in the world just wouldn't be as much fun. Political consultants would be out of a job, and most standup comedians and cartoonists would be out of a job.

I'm willing to risk it

 

[Kacey]

If people stopped voting for nincompoops the most entertaining spectator sport in the world just wouldn't be as much fun. Political consultants would be out of a job, and most standup comedians and cartoonists would be out of a job.

And this would be a bad thing... why?

 

[tellner]

If we didn't have entertaining nitwits running for (or occupying) public office they'd have to fill the airwaves and and pages with an even more not-news and celebrity gossip. I'm not sure that the fabric of space and time could handle the strain, and the universe might collapse into lifeless seething chaos.

*pause*

You're right. It would be worth it. Real candidates addressing real issues would be worth the risk. And the consultants and pollsters could take up stealing the savings of widows and orphans. It would be a step up the social ladder for them.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Stop Voting For Nincompoops :shrug:

Then who would we vote for?

:idea: Question to all, what would happen if absolutely no one voted?

Do you think it would send a message?
Do you think it could potentially make things better?
Do you think it could potentially make things worse?
Who would be in charge if no one voted?

 

[FearlessFreep]

Stop Voting For Nincompoops :shrug:


:idea: Question to all, what would happen if absolutely no one voted?

Do you think it would send a message?

Nope. As I mentioned in another thread, remember Clinton and then Bush. The powers that be don't care what the numbers are in the end. If I get one more vote than you (or maybe even not), then I still claim that as a landslide and a mandate for 'my vision'

 

[Xue Sheng]

Nope. As I mentioned in another thread, remember Clinton and then Bush. The powers that be don't care what the numbers are in the end. If I get one more vote than you (or maybe even not), then I still claim that as a landslide and a mandate for 'my vision'

But there would not be one more vote, there would be zero votes, how could they claim a landslide?

If you throw an election and no one shows up what happens?

It would seem to me that this would be VERY big news and it would likely get a lot of coverage therefore have at least some impact and also be incredibly difficult for anyone to claim a landslide.

I should also add I know this will never happen, party politics being what it is, but I was just curious as to what might happen.

Anything else, which is basically what is going to happen and has happened for many many years, is just saying status quo is the way to go.

 

[FearlessFreep]

But there would not be one more vote, there would be zero votes, how could they claim a landslide?

If you throw an election and no one shows up what happens?

Well considering that the Electoral College would still convene and not all states' Electors would be required to vote for the winner of the popular vote, you could still have a result. How it would be spun to the public as a 'victory' I'm not sure but I have no doubt that the new president would at least treat it as "I was elected so I'm in charge"

 

[Bob Hubbard]

They'd still vote for themselves. Might be only 200-300 votes total, but so what?

 

[Xue Sheng]

They'd still vote for themselves. Might be only 200-300 votes total, but so what?

True, but my question is obviously purely hypothetical, and it would then be so they vote for themselves each gets one vote and we now have a tie. Now what?

Electoral College, again what if enough were fed up with all this garbage to say nope you are not getting anything. (Which I know is pure fantasy) What then? Who wins, who is in charge (since Alexander Hague is not there anymore )

I am not trying to start a movement here nor do I have any fantasy that this would happen and I am not talking only president, but I admittedly did not mention that before. Could be a race for governor or mayor or judge. Obviously the US government is going to have some sort of way to avoid this from ever occurring. I have worked in state government and seen too much (at my low level) to think that the feds would allow this to happen. But what about a state level or a city level and stop some of these Nincompoops before they get the chance to run for President.

Actually I think it did happen once in a small town in the Midwest, no one liked any of the candidates for mayor so no own voted but the candidates and their families and it came out a tie. I need to look into that to see if I remember that correctly or not. Also if I am remembering that correctly neither candidate won it fell to the town council to run things for awhile.

As much as I would like it to work to send a message to the current powers that be (and prove Gandhi right) I seriously doubt it would have any effect at all.

It is just one of those weird what if things that rolls around my demented little mind.

 

[ChadWarner]

Me says vote them out every 2, 4, and 6 years respectively. No more carreer politicians... Never supposed to be that way - get out and get a real job- politics should just be a part time service to your country. No more ted kennedys, strom thurmonds, john mccains, diane finesteins- They should be out hoeing weeds anyways- send the illegals back and replace them with dirty politicians... How many weeds could arnold swartzenhack hoe? I believe we should all band together and find out.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Me says vote them out every 2, 4, and 6 years respectively. No more carreer politicians... Never supposed to be that way - get out and get a real job- politics should just be a part time service to your country. No more ted kennedys, strom thurmonds, john mccains, diane finesteins- They should be out hoeing weeds anyways- send the illegals back and replace them with dirty politicians... How many weeds could arnold swartzenhack hoe? I believe we should all band together and find out.

In my state they did have a vote to see what the populace felt about term limits on all politicians and the vote was overwhelmingly in favor of term limits. Interestingly the majority of people that one their respective elections during that same period were incumbents.

 

[Kacey]

In my state they did have a vote to see what the populace felt about term limits on all politicians and the vote was overwhelmingly in favor of term limits. Interestingly the majority of people that one their respective elections during that same period were incumbents.

That happened here too - in the abstract, people agree with and want term limits, but at the same time, the familiar is more acceptable than the unknown... even the incumbent familiar.

 

[FearlessFreep]

That happened here too - in the abstract, people agree with and want term limits, but at the same time, the familiar is more acceptable than the unknown... even the incumbent familiar.

Seniority is power so people are unwilling to limit the terms of their person in power if the guys in the next state over don't

 

[Xue Sheng]

Seniority is power so people are unwilling to limit the terms of their person in power if the guys in the next state over don't

That or Nincompoops vote for Nincompoops

 

[tellner]

There are many problems with term limits. One of the most important ones is who isn't affected. There are no term limits for lobbyists. If Congressmen and Senators are limited to a couple go-arounds there is no seniority and no institutional memory. Instead, the process will be increasingly run by the vested special interests who can keep their people around forever.

Lobbyists have been writing the laws, literally, for about ten years. Term limits speed the process. The tiny degree to which our representatives represent our interests will diminish even further.

 

[Big Don]

Why are term limits good when applied to the presidency, but, bad when applied to members of congress?