Hopwin wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
I don't see why we need to cut down on people voting a "party line". Because other people don't like the available parties or lines? Sounds to me like "it should be harder for you to vote because of what you vote for."
I am becoming more and more suspicious of people assumign themselves to be educated and informed voters while assuming other people are not. Some of them are not, but there are plenty of people that are not identified with one fo the two major parties that assume themselves to be informed for that reason alone.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I'd say that looking locally the fact that Detroit and Chicago continue to be single party cities while spiralling further and further down the shitter from financial, public safety and economical standpoints would demonstrate that something needs to be done in this country to shake people out of voting complacency and actually consider their choices before blindly voting party lines. Oh and not to pick sides, I am sure that if I tried I could find examples of Republican dominated cities spiralling themselves into the shitter too.
edit: Oh and that's not to say Republicans might do a better job or Democrats, just that competition is kind of necessary for improvement.
Honestly, these problems in general are because we have too many single-issue voters, I'd much prefer a test that disenfranchises them instead. People who vote the party line still got to vote on the issues when they nominated their R or D candidate. It's not even so much, "I will never vote for someone who is for/against position X," because there are theoretical positions where that attitude is reasonable. It's the voters that, when faced with a choice of several candidates who are all either pro or anti-X, will always nominate the one that is the most rabidly pro or anti-X, regardless of their positions on anything else, that are the problem.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
She's on a Texas bent lately.
