• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Abysmal Voter Turnout Implications

Ontologuy said:
And, in California, Johnson garnered only twice as many votes as .. Rossane Barr. If any more proof is needed for libertarians that theirs is a lost cause, I don't know what it is.

It is time for a new centrist offering in American politics, to bring liberty and justice to all American citizens, to bring our jobs back to America, and to restore prosperity to American citizens, all American citizens, regardless of race, color or creed, and to bring America back from the brink of becoming a soverignless and dependent U.N. city-state.
Click to expand...

The UN has no power, and won't ever... so I'm not worried about that...

I agree that we need a centrist party to stop being guided left and right by the extremes of either side of the spectrum...

However, when you say "another", when have we ever had one? America ignored Washington's warning, and right from the beginning took the European model of us vs them in legislatures... Whigs Torries Federalists Anti-Federalists Republicans Democrats... it's always cost those rational minds in the middle who seek balance and alternative approaches which could solve problems better... than the false dichotomy we are always presented with...
 
What would be the policy positions and platform of a "true centrist"?
 
IndepCentristMA said:
The UN has no power, and won't ever... so I'm not worried about that...

I agree that we need a centrist party to stop being guided left and right by the extremes of either side of the spectrum...

However, when you say "another", when have we ever had one? America ignored Washington's warning, and right from the beginning took the European model of us vs them in legislatures... Whigs Torries Federalists Anti-Federalists Republicans Democrats... it's always cost those rational minds in the middle who seek balance and alternative approaches which could solve problems better... than the false dichotomy we are always presented with...
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree about our history.

Whether the UN will ever have that power or not, the problem is that Obama's Multi-Cultural Internationalist ideological mindset believes it wil, and thus his policies so based will effect changes in that direction. This will function to cause dismantling of America in preparation for his idealized one-world borderless, nationless U.N. government. Thus he will do nothing to stop corporate out-sourcing of American jobs, and he will ignore our nation's boundaries by championing amnesty and legalization for 20 million trespassers, identity-forgers, and job/classroom/other-resource stealers that, once he succeeds, will instantly cause wage-scales across the nation to plummet, thereby bringing us closer to workers in third-world countries .. all part of the ideological "one-world" mindset conversion tactics.

It's not a matter of whether or not little by little we will eventually become a U.N. city-state, it's about the damage ideologues like Obama will do to America in the meantime.

As for "another", when I said we need a "new centrist party", I meant a new party that is centrist, and I didn't mean to imply that there was already a centrist party and that we needed to replace it with a new one.

That being said, there are a few separate efforts right now attempting to create a single centrist party that will truly appeal to centrists. These separate efforts need to work together to distill the centrist philosophy down to its essence, and create a single centrist party that will unite all centrists.
 
Last edited:
spanky said:
What would be the policy positions and platform of a "true centrist"?
Click to expand...
The answer to your question is forthcoming in a new thread in a very short time.
 
Ontologuy said:
:roll:

3k9c11a5u1q7
Click to expand...

The above reply confirms the absence of credible literature suggesting that immigration reform that includes, but is not limited to, a degree of forgiveness for undocumented immigrants would have "dire economic consequences."

For those who are interested in an informed discussion on immigration reform, the following is a link to an Atlanta Federal Reserve working paper on the issue. The working paper sketches out a reasonable approach to immigration policy.

http://www.frbatlanta.org/filelegacydocs/wp0410.pdf
 
donsutherland1 said:
The above reply confirms the absence of credible literature suggesting that immigration reform that includes, but is not limited to, a degree of forgiveness for undocumented immigrants would have "dire economic consequences."

For those who are interested in an informed discussion on immigration reform, the following is a link to an Atlanta Federal Reserve working paper on the issue. The working paper sketches out a reasonable approach to immigration policy.

http://www.frbatlanta.org/filelegacydocs/wp0410.pdf
Click to expand...
Your disinformation campaign continues. :roll:

The link you provide says nothing about the effect of illegals and amnesty/legalication on American wage-scales.

And, in fact, it presents how illegals work for peanuts, and that, once legalized, they will accept minimum wage for work in industries previously paying two to three times that much.

That will cause wage-scales to plummet, obviously.

No one with even a rudimentary knowledge of socioeconomics and geopolitics will fall for your obvious ideological ploy to dumb down the reader.

Give it up, Donsutherland1.

You only make your cause look even more foolish.
 
Ontologuy said:
Early figures show fewer Americans cast votes in 2012 race than in 2008 | StarTribune.com

According to estimates, voter turnout nationally in the 2012 election will end up being just a bit above 60% of those eligible to vote.

Voter turnout therefore is definitely less than in 2008, more so than can be accounted for by Frankenstorm Sandy .. and that's truly abysmal.

So, what does this mean?

First of all, it means that nearly 40% of eligible voters didn't show up.

And why didn't they show up?

Because the great majority of people, the "silent majority" at the center of the political spectrum, simply had no one on the Presidential ballot to get excited about, without which, they simply stayed home.

It is reasonably safe to conclude that most of the 10% of the population who are truly liberal (Democrat) and the 10% of the population who are truly conservative (Republican), they showed up, and the roughly 5% to the left of liberal and the right of conservative, including schizoid libertarians, most of these voted too, though it does appear that a number of them simply faced reality and voted for either Obama or Romney.

That leaves roughly 75% of the population, those who calibrate at the center of the political spectrum, who had to decide on the lesser of two evils or simply not to show up .. and it appears that over half of them stayed home.

It is truly sad when so many American citizens are unrepresented by the current political offerings that they either have to hold their nose to vote or the stench is so overpowering they can't get within voting distance of a polling place.

If there was ever any indication that the time was right for centrists to come together and create their own party, this was it.

And when Obama commences to resume his dismantling of America via amnesty and legalization of 20 million illegals in "strategic" increments, fueling the race-war he explictly knowingly baited in his campaign rhetoric, more borrowing from non-American sources to increase the foreign ownership of America, increased taxes, increased meaningless unessential spending, increased debt in general, doing nothing to end out-sourcing American jobs and bring our jobs back home ... oh, yes, the great silent majority will indeed become very vocal; they will have to, or, they will die forever as a political force, along with our nation, succumbing to Obama's Multi-Cultural Internationalist ideological mindset fantasy of a one-world nationless borderless U.N. government, with all workers everywhere on the globe earning the same amount of abject poverty wages, and that includes Americans.

The evolutionary phenomenological cycle of the party split, creating liberal Dems and conservative Repubs, the two polarizing so extremely as they have now to create a vast opening at the center for the next evolutionary stage in politics, the emergence of that stage to dominate and render the previous two polemics to "third party" status, the eventual split of the new centrists into two parts, their slow polarization to the degree of liberal Dems and conservative Repubs today, opening the door for another new centrist offering .. all is a normal part of historic political philosophy evolutionary change.

The new centrist offering is most definitely on its way .. let's just hope that Obama doesn't kill America off before the new centrist offering can save America.

For those idealistically fantasizing that The Libertarian Party is a player, it turned out that the comparative microscopic number of votes cast for Johnson was meaningless. Libertarians, it's time to come back to reality. No ideology that is in any way wingish is going to grow at all, and libertarianism, being a schizoid left-wing on social issues and right-wing on economic-fiscal issues, is thus simply not a player. Only in Florida did the tiny half percent of Johnson votes have an effect on letting Obama edge out Romney, and in no other state did Libertarian Party votes figure into the contest in that manner.

And, in California, Johnson garnered only twice as many votes as .. Rossane Barr. If any more proof is needed for libertarians that theirs is a lost cause, I don't know what it is.

It is time for a new centrist offering in American politics, to bring liberty and justice to all American citizens, to bring our jobs back to America, and to restore prosperity to American citizens, all American citizens, regardless of race, color or creed, and to bring America back from the brink of becoming a soverignless and dependent U.N. city-state.

Tick tock, Americans.
Click to expand...

Oh ya the long lines till midnight were imaginary. Losers who make excuses are known as ....?
 
head of joaquin said:
It's somewhat ironic to see an OP from a conservative bemoaning lack turnout, when the GOP strategy for the past 30 years has been to suppress voter turnout.
Click to expand...

I know right? You'd think they want to lose more.

I want to tear my hair out when Republicans still have the mentality that they need to be more conservative to "motivate" their base, as if their base isn't crazed enough. It's mind boggling that they believe they are losing because they can't get their base out to vote. I got news for them, if they got every conservative and the Dems got every liberal they'd lose, by a lot more than they lost this election. Stop running off the right side cliff.

Reagan is long dead, the era is passed, times are different. Get that though your heads. Besides, he's a good president but he's not THAT amazing.
 
Last edited:
Maybe the poor turnout was because that one black guy was standing outside a polling place. CLEAR VOTER INTIMIDATION. He even held the door open for people. My God.
 
I've always wondered about these issues - does 60% of 'active voters who voted' include those who had to send in absentee ballots?

Which comes from: Elderly, disabled, deployed or stationed military members, etc.

All in all - 60% is pretty good, I think. . .considering that there's even some people out there who believe that over 1/2 of our active voters should be denied the right to vote.

I do wonder why less men vote than women on average - it puzzles me considerably.
 
The reason America has low voter turnout is because of the electoral college. If you live in Texas, California, New York, etc your vote doesn't matter. Also, if you live out west, the election may be decided before your polls even close. Especially true for Hawaii and Alaska.

That's your reason. That, and pure laziness.

Ontologuy said:
Early figures show fewer Americans cast votes in 2012 race than in 2008 | StarTribune.com

According to estimates, voter turnout nationally in the 2012 election will end up being just a bit above 60% of those eligible to vote.

Voter turnout therefore is definitely less than in 2008, more so than can be accounted for by Frankenstorm Sandy .. and that's truly abysmal.

So, what does this mean?

First of all, it means that nearly 40% of eligible voters didn't show up.

And why didn't they show up?

Because the great majority of people, the "silent majority" at the center of the political spectrum, simply had no one on the Presidential ballot to get excited about, without which, they simply stayed home.

It is reasonably safe to conclude that most of the 10% of the population who are truly liberal (Democrat) and the 10% of the population who are truly conservative (Republican), they showed up, and the roughly 5% to the left of liberal and the right of conservative, including schizoid libertarians, most of these voted too, though it does appear that a number of them simply faced reality and voted for either Obama or Romney.

That leaves roughly 75% of the population, those who calibrate at the center of the political spectrum, who had to decide on the lesser of two evils or simply not to show up .. and it appears that over half of them stayed home.

It is truly sad when so many American citizens are unrepresented by the current political offerings that they either have to hold their nose to vote or the stench is so overpowering they can't get within voting distance of a polling place.

If there was ever any indication that the time was right for centrists to come together and create their own party, this was it.

And when Obama commences to resume his dismantling of America via amnesty and legalization of 20 million illegals in "strategic" increments, fueling the race-war he explictly knowingly baited in his campaign rhetoric, more borrowing from non-American sources to increase the foreign ownership of America, increased taxes, increased meaningless unessential spending, increased debt in general, doing nothing to end out-sourcing American jobs and bring our jobs back home ... oh, yes, the great silent majority will indeed become very vocal; they will have to, or, they will die forever as a political force, along with our nation, succumbing to Obama's Multi-Cultural Internationalist ideological mindset fantasy of a one-world nationless borderless U.N. government, with all workers everywhere on the globe earning the same amount of abject poverty wages, and that includes Americans.

The evolutionary phenomenological cycle of the party split, creating liberal Dems and conservative Repubs, the two polarizing so extremely as they have now to create a vast opening at the center for the next evolutionary stage in politics, the emergence of that stage to dominate and render the previous two polemics to "third party" status, the eventual split of the new centrists into two parts, their slow polarization to the degree of liberal Dems and conservative Repubs today, opening the door for another new centrist offering .. all is a normal part of historic political philosophy evolutionary change.

The new centrist offering is most definitely on its way .. let's just hope that Obama doesn't kill America off before the new centrist offering can save America.

For those idealistically fantasizing that The Libertarian Party is a player, it turned out that the comparative microscopic number of votes cast for Johnson was meaningless. Libertarians, it's time to come back to reality. No ideology that is in any way wingish is going to grow at all, and libertarianism, being a schizoid left-wing on social issues and right-wing on economic-fiscal issues, is thus simply not a player. Only in Florida did the tiny half percent of Johnson votes have an effect on letting Obama edge out Romney, and in no other state did Libertarian Party votes figure into the contest in that manner.

And, in California, Johnson garnered only twice as many votes as .. Rossane Barr. If any more proof is needed for libertarians that theirs is a lost cause, I don't know what it is.

It is time for a new centrist offering in American politics, to bring liberty and justice to all American citizens, to bring our jobs back to America, and to restore prosperity to American citizens, all American citizens, regardless of race, color or creed, and to bring America back from the brink of becoming a soverignless and dependent U.N. city-state.

Tick tock, Americans.
Click to expand...
 
QUOTE=Ontologuy;1061122509]Your disinformation campaign continues. :roll:

The link you provide says nothing about the effect of illegals and amnesty/legalication on American wage-scales.[/quote]

The Federal Reserve Working Paper focuses on the big issues. The literature suggests that the impact of legalization on native workers would be modest.

From the 2010 edition of the Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy:

Results suggest that a new program granting amnesty to undocumented immigrant farmworkers, reminiscent of the Seasonal Agricultural Worker program under the Immigration Reform and Control Act, would have minimal effects on farmworker outcomes especially in the short term, and that if employers pass labor cost increases to consumers via food prices, effects on consumers would be similarly minimal.

Source: Anita Alves Pena, "Legalization and Immigrants in U.S. Agriculture," Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, 2010.

Research by two public policy institutes reached similar conclusions on the broader impact of legalization of undocumented immigrants.

A study that was done for the CATO Institute revealed:

This study finds that increased enforcement and reduced low-skilled immigration have a significant negative impact on the income of U.S. households. Modest savings in public expenditures would be more than offset by losses in economic output and job opportunities for more-skilled American workers. A policy that reduces the number of low-skilled immigrant workers by 28.6 percent compared to projected levels would reduce U.S. household welfare by about 0.5 percent, or $80 billion.

In contrast, legalization of low-skilled immigrant workers would yield significant income gains for American workers and households. Legalization would eliminate smugglers’ fees and other costs faced by illegal immigrants. It would also allow immigrants to have higher productivity and create more openings for Americans in higher skilled occupations. The positive impact for U.S. households of legalization under an optimal visa tax would be 1.27 percent of GDP or $180 billion.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tpa/tpa-040.pdf

A Public Policy Institute of California Study revealed:

This report finds that legalizing most currently unauthorized immigrants would not lead to dramatic changes in the labor market, either for unauthorized immigrants or for native workers. We also find little evidence to support the view that such a step would have significant effects on the broader economy, particularly on tax revenues or public assistance programs.

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_410LHR.pdf
 
On the flip side, if you go pure popular vote for the presidency, less populated areas are going to end up ignored during the campaigns.
 
AdamT said:
Voting should be compulsory, as it is in Brazil (where they actually have voting machines that are secure and functional).
Click to expand...

All this would be much easier for you if you didn't have to vote for so many things at once. Up here, on election day, you get a ballot with 5 or 6 names on it listing the candidates for your member of parliament and party affiliation, with a bunch of big circles next to their names, and you indicate which one to vote for by doing whatever you want within those circles (fill the whole thing in, checkmark, x, smilie face, whatever). Votes are then manually tallied at the end at each polling box, with the person looking at voter intention rater than mechanics (if it is clear a voter intended to vote for someone, that's who the vote counts for).

Very simple, and allows for high voter turnover so that polls can handle more people more quickly.

And while I know you can't do that with the hosue and senate, why not have different voting days for state representatives, so that every voter doesn't need to take 15 minutes filling out their ballots?
 
spanky said:
What would be the policy positions and platform of a "true centrist"?
Click to expand...

To answer your question... there is actually an official Centrist Party... or I was involved with people forming one, and I believe they made it official... however, it's small time, and still growing...

I think these are the people I was working with...
The Centrist Party

But, there's also this group as well...
American Centrist Party- Not Left, Not Right, but Forward

So as I said, it's still in the works... there is no one unified centrist movement with widespread support...

I left them, because I still heed the brilliant sentiment that George Washington warned of... avoiding forming political parties, because it damages politics...

However, the kind of Centrist platform I would encourage isn't one that's so set in stone, and encompasses a rather Big Top approach, that leaves room for moderates of both sides to agree with... and encourages some of the fringe supporters who distrust/dislike the major parties to support its emergence...

The trouble with that is... where most centrists disagree with libertarians is the role of government in foreign affairs... Libertarians tend to be isolationist, pacifist, and separatist... Most centrists believe in a strong military and the belief that peace is only accomplished if strength is a deterent to back it up...

Another area where centrists separate themselves from Libertarians, is they also recognize that the world has evolved into globalization which has fostered a world marketplace and a broadening of industrial development and international commerce... we now have to compete against other nation's for the lead of the economy... It's not ours to control... Therefore the isolationist, buy American, shut off trade, etc. crowd isn't going to succeed going forward... We need to foster more cooperative opportunities, encourage free trade, and expand our companies to benefit from globalization...


One area where centrists differ among themselves is tax policy...

Some centrists think the Bowles-Simpson approach is exactly what we should take... Liberals think that means a highly progressive tax rate which taxes the rich to feed the poor... Centrists tend to think there are more ways to generate the revenue than to raise taxes in a bad economy... They come up with ideas like selling naming rights, alternative tax options like a VAT, etc. Other centrists find it appauling that federal government would continue to try to increase revenue at the expense of their citizens, and that goverment spending is out of hand... Some of us advocate limiting spending... Some of us support a flat tax... Some of us are adamant that we need a VAT... Some centrists find government reform to be the best approach, and if you just elimate waste, fraud, pork, inefficiency, we won't need to adjust anything... Most centrists subsribe to a combination of these things... The only thing they tend to have in common, is that they never just tout the party line, and are objective, and can be swayed upon evidence...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom