• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do elections have consequences?

Do elections have consequences?

  • Total voters
    18
  • Poll closed .
Every decision has consequences.
 
Depends. In the United States, or in Burma?
 
How do liberals defend preventing those consequences being visited upon the public workers of Wisconsin and elsewhere?
 
I put no, in the states effectively both parties likely have the same masters... perhaps. Same coin ordeal I feel. Ultimately in consequences for human society it wont matter who gets elected in the US with things the way there are now.
 
Chappy said:
How do liberals defend preventing those consequences being visited upon the public workers of Wisconsin and elsewhere?
Click to expand...

You are seeing the wrong consequence. Elections give people and parties more or less power, not absolute power.
 
Quorum rules extend rights to minorities in this case Democrats.
 
Chappy said:
How do liberals defend preventing those consequences being visited upon the public workers of Wisconsin and elsewhere?
Click to expand...

That's why I was going to say the 2008 one did but the 2010, not so sure yet.
 
Maybe. Maybe not. Depends if the voters really have a choice.

"I don't care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating."

-Boss Tweed
 
SE102 said:
I put no, in the states effectively both parties likely have the same masters... perhaps. Same coin ordeal I feel. Ultimately in consequences for human society it wont matter who gets elected in the US with things the way there are now.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. We have a thriving democracy. I disagree with the outcome but I would defend like Hell the right of the American people to make that mistake and suffer the consequences for it.
 
Chappy said:
Simple enough.
Click to expand...


Yes. Meaning that the majority will get to enact laws you don't like ,appoint judges you don't like and so on if you are in the minority.That said it doesn't mean that those in the minority have to take it lying down, they can use what ever legally available tool they have to oppose the majority.


Even if the elected officials you voted for are in the majority, they may do things you dislike. That is another consequence. For example I usually vote for conservatives .Even though a lot of them claim to be patriotic and dislike communist, many of them tend to support outsourcing. Which I severely detest because I believe it is unpatriotic to support the outsourcing of jobs and makes them very hypocritical to support outsourcing to communist countries.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
Yes. Meaning that the majority will get to enact laws you don't ,appoint judges you don't like and so on if you are in the minority.That said it doesn't mean that those in the minority have to take it lying down, they can use what ever legally available tool they have to oppose the majority.


Even if the elected officials you voted for are in the majority, they may do things you dislike. That is another consequence. For example I usually vote for conservatives.Even though a lot of them claim to be patriotic and dislike communist many of them tend to support outsourcing which I severely detest.
Click to expand...

Wow James, you nailed it in a way I could not. Excellent post.
 
Barbbtx said:
That's why I was going to say the 2008 one did but the 2010, not so sure yet.
Click to expand...

How so? The exact same parliamentary rules are in place now as before 2010. The only difference for the most part is/will be who uses which tactic.
 
The people have little involvement in elections from a practical standpoint. Sure, in theory someone like Ralph Nader or Ron Paul could be elected, but largely the decision is limited to the two parties, both of which are political arms of big business, although in different ways. Are there differences between the parties? Sure. Are they significant? Somewhat. It's like asking me to choose between being shot in the foot and being shot in the kneecap. I'll take the foot, but it's not much of an improvement.

Nothing really ever changes, it's just that after 4 or 8 years the public forgets how crap it was the last time the other party was in power, and so reelects them. Repeat ad infinitum = US politics, and most of global politics.
 
Redress said:
You are seeing the wrong consequence. Elections give people and parties more or less power, not absolute power.
Click to expand...

good point; everyone has the power to simply kick over the checkerboard and refuse to play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom