Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

140436[evol-psych] Re: President candidates being out of touch

Expand Messages
  • clarence_sonny_williams
    Oct 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Julienne and Don,

      There are good reasons that the U.S. Constitution's form of government
      practically forces a two-party system. I'm not arguing for or against
      it here (that occupied a whole class in my undergraduate, political
      science days), just reminding you both that there are practical reasons
      and suggestions that it works better than multiparty systems. For one,
      stability is enhanced, mostly at the critical, supportive and
      administrative level (the first 2 or more layers of most American
      secretariats are appointed positions, thus important "worker bees" could
      have a new boss every four years). Countries with many parties are
      terribly unstable (e.g., Italy).

      Also, it is the States, not the Federal government, that governs the
      manner and timing of all elections. The Constitution only directs the
      timing of government formation. If a state fails to meet that deadline,
      its federal representatives will not be seated in the new Congress.
      That has happened circa Civil War era.

      Finally, I believe most states have done away with their systems whereby
      a citizen can cast a "whole party" ballot. I remember days when we went
      to voting booths and could pull one lever, Democrat or Republican. I do
      not believe that exists any more, so retention of judges can be voted
      for or against based on individual merit and not party.

      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Julienne <julienne@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > At 10:57 PM 9/30/2012, Don Zimmerman wrote:
      > >--- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Julienne julienne@
      wrote:
      > >
      > > > Of course, people have different perspectives, and will answer the
      > > > questions from their different visions, - or lack of visions.
      > > >
      > > > One issue which has for decades confounded me, is how so many
      elected
      > > > leaders, not to mention appointed leaders, tend not to represent
      what
      > > > we might consider to be our "best" people - those with the human
      > > > qualities we would think we would admire and want most to
      represent
      > > > us - wisdom, kindness, intelligence, inclusiveness, a broad
      vision,
      > > > empathy, Instead we get people wanting to put probes up women's
      > > > vaginas - run prostitution rings in France, deny climate chsnge,
      join
      > > > the banking robbers, steal the vote, grab the cream for the top
      and
      > > > leave millions around the world starving, struggling, dying - and
      > > > these issues are hardly a focus - more a passing nod, as if to
      > > > acknowledge people know about these issues, and the mere
      > > > acknowledgement of knowing gives one points without having to
      > > > actually do anything.
      > > >
      > > > By the way, Don - it is also important to look for the
      Independents
      > > > on the voting sheets - they can be hidden - and so if one just
      clicks
      > > > off one party in a straight vote, one might miss someone running
      > > > separately from any party for a local judgeship, for example. That
      > > > can have an immense influence on local politics - even national.
      > >
      > >
      > >DWZ:
      > >Yes, those human qualities you mention are certainly needed in
      > >political leaders at all levels, but getting people who possess them
      > >in those positions is not easy. Probably in American society there
      > >are selective factors that concentrate the very best leaders (of the
      > >type needed in government) in corporations, medicine, law, the
      > >military, science and engineering, etc. rather than politics. The
      > >best people are attracted to the best paying jobs, and politics ends
      > >up with leftovers.
      > >
      > >As to independent voters, true, they cannot be ignored. What we
      > >should watch out for is supporting an independent when it takes away
      > >votes from the desired presidential candidate and allows the lesser
      > >candidate to be elected. The same for the balance of votes in
      > >congress. For example, even thougn I admire Ralph Nader greatly as a
      > >consumer advocate, I wish he had stayed out of Pesidental races,
      > >because he just attracted Democratic votes that normally would have
      > >gone to Kerry or Obama. I fear that third party and independent
      > >candidates often are driven more by ego than assessment of what is
      > >best and realistic in the outcome of the election.
      >
      > Hi, Don,
      >
      > I agree with you. However, what I was talking about is a special
      > place on the ballot where it is
      > not a competition for the Congress, but just for judges, I think. I
      > wish I had written down what was said - but it's a special place on
      > the ballot for the judges...which we might miss if we just vote
      > straight party. If we don't find that set of boxes - only those who
      > know about them will - and there go our votes.
      >
      > I agree about Nader - The Peter Principle. He also interfered with Al
      > Gore, as I remember. It's sad -
      >
      > However, perhaps we don't have our best people as corporate heads,
      > either. Now, if we could just even
      > out salaries, then that might change everything.
      >
      > Julienne
      >
      >
      >
      > The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this
      > globalized and expansive empire is - and I say this seriously - the
      > greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been.
      > Fidel Castro. January 2012
      >
    • Show all 15 messages in this topic