Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

That's why there should be a test you have to take in order to get all your citizenship rights. That way, all the smart kids can get to vote and stuff, because they know the issues, while all the dumb people could not vote until they got smarter. It wouldn't fly here, though.

At 4/8/04 06:38 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: And They have a vote. And I dont.

*starts to blubber*

Get over it!

Can felons vote in the UK? Disenfranchising felons is bullshit.

At 4/8/04 06:56 PM, RotesStinktier wrote:

At 4/8/04 06:38 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: And They have a vote. And I dont.

*starts to blubber*

Get over it!

Can felons vote in the UK? Disenfranchising felons is bullshit.

I think many felons have disenfranchised themselves....

No matter, I'm all too sure then when I turn 18 I'll register as an independent or with some quasi-socialist party

I'm disgusted by both the Republican and Demococrat party. If you don't see the corporate greed festering in politics than there's something wrong.

At 4/9/04 10:39 PM, MadMax501 wrote: No matter, I'm all too sure then when I turn 18 I'll register as an independent or with some quasi-socialist party

Register Green. They are at least lefter than the Dems, plus have ballot status in most states.

Oh, you live in NY. They do have ballot status.

At 4/8/04 06:51 PM, Jlop985 wrote: That's why there should be a test you have to take in order to get all your citizenship rights. That way, all the smart kids can get to vote and stuff, because they know the issues, while all the dumb people could not vote until they got smarter. It wouldn't fly here, though.

Man, this is too good to be true. Now if I can consolidate this with my "no political parties" stance, and add one more step, I'll almost be home and dry.....

At 4/8/04 06:51 PM, Jlop985 wrote: That's why there should be a test you have to take in order to get all your citizenship rights. That way, all the smart kids can get to vote and stuff, because they know the issues, while all the dumb people could not vote until they got smarter. It wouldn't fly here, though.

So then basically, the poor and uneducated get screwed over, thats sounds just great!

At 4/10/04 12:08 AM, ineffable_fetus wrote: So then basically, the poor and uneducated get screwed over, thats sounds just great!

Shush!!! I'm trying to push a secret agenda here!!!

At 4/8/04 06:51 PM, Jlop985 wrote: That's why there should be a test you have to take in order to get all your citizenship rights. That way, all the smart kids can get to vote and stuff, because they know the issues, while all the dumb people could not vote until they got smarter. It wouldn't fly here, though.

I think the only qualification to vote in the UK would be that you could name the PM, current Leader of the Opposition, and any two people from the cabinet...

And according to the BBC, about 40% would fail...

At 4/10/04 12:11 AM, JudgeFUNK wrote:

At 4/10/04 12:08 AM, ineffable_fetus wrote: So then basically, the poor and uneducated get screwed over, thats sounds just great!

Shush!!! I'm trying to push a secret agenda here!!!

I think everyone's ideas need to be fairly represented...especially the poor, because they're the ones who will recieve the most government benefits

Yeah, the green parties ok....My dad's so pissed about Republicans and Democrats bullshit he's just going to vote Nader in the election. He's an independant anyways.

wow, this is back from the dead, neato

I thought I might attempt to waste some more of everyone's time

hahaha

At 4/13/04 08:04 PM, MadMax501 wrote: My dad's so pissed about Republicans and Democrats bullshit he's just going to vote Nader in the election.

You should encourage him to vote for the Green candidate instead of Nader.

Nader is but a man, the Greens are a continual party. They [we] need support.

At 4/13/04 09:24 PM, MadMax501 wrote: I thought I might attempt to waste some more of everyone's time

hahaha

yeah, and by replying to your post, I waste even more of ppl's time. Wow, wtf are we doing?

he's NOT a nazi party member, and frankly, your banner offends me

If everyone would just shut the fuck up and vote their mind, the third parties would have a better chance. People feel obligated to vote for the elephant or the jackass because they think voting for a third party is a waste of a vote. But the only reason it is a waste of a vote is because everyone thinks that.

At 4/8/04 06:19 PM, Jlop985 wrote: and I hope I'm wrong and everyone here does know about the electoral system.

If we knew that much about our electoral system, then everyone wouldn't have been surprised when Bush won the last election. "Gore got the most votes, why isn't he in office?" A common complaint I heard.

At 4/14/04 09:38 PM, subpar wrote: If everyone would just shut the fuck up and vote their mind, the third parties would have a better chance. People feel obligated to vote for the elephant or the jackass because they think voting for a third party is a waste of a vote. But the only reason it is a waste of a vote is because everyone thinks that.

good point

At 4/14/04 09:38 PM, subpar wrote: If everyone would just shut the fuck up and vote their mind, the third parties would have a better chance. People feel obligated to vote for the elephant or the jackass because they think voting for a third party is a waste of a vote. But the only reason it is a waste of a vote is because everyone thinks that.

The problem with our current system of voting is that it gives the advantage to the political faction that is least divided, and not necessarily the one that has the most support. This is the spoiler effect. Suppose for a moment that 60% of the country is left-wing, ranging from moderate liberal to communist, and the 40% is right wing. If there are 3 candidates from the left, and one candidate from the right, the one from the right would most likely get a plurality, because the vote would get divided between the 3 left-wing candidates. In order to increase the effectiveness, and indeed the desirability of third parties, we need to change the electoral system to IRV or Condorcet or something.

but third party candidates only get a tiny percentage of the vote....the most sucessful third party candidiate in recent history is Ross Perot, who got something like 19%, but didn't win one state. Those votes were taken mostly from republican pary members...Ralph Nader got about 3 or 4% last election, enough to swing the vote, but not a vast amount of Americans. The splits you're talking about really don't exist, and that's the problem....

At 4/7/04 11:41 PM, MadMax501 wrote: I've found it increasingly frustrating that we only have 2 parties (that mean anything) in the u.s. Many other democraticly elected nations have many parties, which may cause some chaos when making laws, but more fairly represents the different groups of people that reside in the country. I feel that neither democrats nor republicans represent my view, and it's irritating me beyond belief...I'd like to know all your opinions on this matter.

yo we got more than 2 parties its just that the other parties arent as big and as well heard of....like the green party is one i know of

Here's my 2 cents. I was raised a republican, and I thought Bush was the man, and represented me. I was mistaken, just 'cuase he's from the south doesn't make him much better. He's gonna open the border's so he can get the mexican broder jumper's vote. How selfish can a president be? And the repercusans of this will be our kids having trouble finding a job after they are out of school. He says it will be jobs that no one else wants to do. 1. That shows what he thinks of them. 2. What if some American people can only clean up crap and be ditch sdiggers, and they actually want to have a job and live? What about them? 3. It's hard enough to get a job now, what about kid's entering the work force with no experience, and here comes soem broder jumper that will work for a buck under the table, or even minium wage on the table, and the youth, and even the elder who can't do anything more don't get those jobs.
Bush has lost my confidence, and that's just the start of it.
Kerry has a few things I disagree with, but he reprpesents most of america, not the special intrests. Let's get the rascal out of office. I'll pick the lesser of the 2 evils. It's not like Bush is a shoe-in. It's gonna be a close'n. We don't have the luxery to vote for the green party this election. THAT'S WHY NADAR IS NOT RUNNING AND HAS ENDORSED KERRY!!

yo we got more than 2 parties its just that the other parties arent as big and as well heard of....like the green party is one i know of

ok....read what I write god damn it! I said 2 parties that mean anything! Only 2 parties in the u.s.a. really have power!

2 party system
yeah right
it's more like a 1.15 party system
Anarchy Movement

At 4/8/04 06:56 PM, RedSkvnk wrote: Can felons vote in the UK? Disenfranchising felons is bullshit.

No. Only people CURRENTLY in prison cannot vote, neither can members of the Royal Family. If you have committed a crime, and you are out of prison, you can vote again, as you have served your debt to society.

why can't members of the royal family

also, how many parties in the uk are considered to have a good deal of power? British people I've spoken to have given me the impression it's more than 2

At 4/16/04 06:03 PM, MadMax501 wrote: why can't members of the royal family

No idea. But they can't. Not that they really give a stuff who's in power anyway, it doesn't matter to them.

also, how many parties in the uk are considered to have a good deal of power? British people I've spoken to have given me the impression it's more than 2

There are two very main parties, The Conservative Party (Just right of the Democrats, but nowhere NEAR as right as the Republicans), New Labour (just left of the Democrats), and the Lib Dems (WAY right of your 2 main parties.

There are the Greens, and the BNP as well, but they are minor. Greens are very left, and environmentalists. The BNP are about as right, Socially, as the Republicans. They are considered INCREDIBLY right-wing here.

But seriously, people, political parties are a necktie version of gang warfare. Instead of people voting for what's right, they vote for whatever will help progress their party, instead of what will progress their nation. Until we as a people realize that right is more important than personal, we will continue this downward spiral.

Do your part to end the madness. Boycott partisanship.

No no no. Keep the parties. Make reforms to the system!

The vast majority of every population every where does not care overly about politics. Parties are a good way for poeple to 'roughly guess' at a politican's platform - if a politican is running as a dem, and the voter is a dem, then the politican will probably be adequate enough.

Without parties, voter turnout would plummet, and the entire electoral process would be dominated by the rich and the well-known.

At 4/16/04 08:00 PM, RedSkvnk wrote: No no no. Keep the parties. Make reforms to the system!

The vast majority of every population every where does not care overly about politics. Parties are a good way for poeple to 'roughly guess' at a politican's platform - if a politican is running as a dem, and the voter is a dem, then the politican will probably be adequate enough.

Without parties, voter turnout would plummet, and the entire electoral process would be dominated by the rich and the well-known.

I've spoken to friends many times about that

and bumcheekcity.....From what my brothers told me a lot of the conservatives in the uk also talk about redispersing power and giving it back to the royal family....any truth to this? It's so distant from American politics.