Electoral Politics: A Losing Game

Since the mid-terms are coming up later this year and typically the party in power loses seats. Although with the latest controversy with the potential overturning of Roe, some say will galvanize the democratic base and bring them out to the polls thus helping to ensure the democrats hold onto power. I say who cares! The pendulum just swings back and forth and nothing major changes. It’s still the same old, same old and the lower class gets very little. The duopoly is a waste of time.

I thought the narrative was that the upper class gets richer, the lower class gets a free ride, and the middle class suffers?

1 Like

What’s the purpose of this thread? Is it just a rant or…?

Zep at it again?

1 Like

I just took a shit.

It was a really good one too.

4 Likes

Lucky your not constipated

1 Like

Constipation is for commies.

1 Like

What should the “Lower Class” get?

And don’t we say “working class” now?

Do you vote? I don’t.

Mass democracy is a scam.

2 Likes

Edit: I guess you’re right, tho I never thought of it like that

:thinking:

2 Likes

Isn’t that because their “elected leaders” keep them constantly puckered?

1 Like

That and their diet usually isn’t conducive for frequent bowel movements.

2 Likes

That electoral politics rarely changes things. While people get up and roused about who(Dem or Rep) gets into office, it is mostly a waste of time because the politicians don’t represent people. They represent their major campaign donors(wealthy and corporations).

1 Like

It changed my gas bill from ~$50 a week to ~$95 a week and took my groceries from ~$125 a week to ~$200. I’d say that’s a relatively significant change.

I’d also say forcing people out of work for 8 months over a virus that has a relatively low lethality rate is a significant change.

Or eating 8% inflation in a year.

Or implementing green energy laws that raise electric bills over 100% original cost.

Or disallowing children from attending public AND private schools based on vaccination status, regardless of whether or not the child has already had Covid.

Or sending sick people into nursing homes to thin the herd.

But you’re right, it rarely changes things.

5 Likes

If electoral politics is a losing game, what is the winning game we would be playing if we were as smart as @castoli ?

Let me guess…

A nebulous system of government that’s totally not recycled Marxism.

4 Likes

1 Like

Speaking as one that cast my first federal vote in 1980, and has pulled a blue lever exactly once. I believe most of the conditions you lament would be taking place regardless of administration. Electoral politics may be the best choice going, however it’s flaws are worth taking a look at. I’m not a fan of Lessig, but some valid points are made.

Our democracy no longer represents the people. Here’s how we fix it | Larry Lessig | TEDxMidAtlantic - YouTube

2 Likes

I watched it. We were never meant to be a true democracy, and that is what he wants to move us more toward. The average person is dumb, and 50% of people are dumber than that. I LIKE the fact that people who have been successful in building companies and wealth in the country have more of an influence than the 61% who don’t even pay any income tax and have no skin in the game.

Gerrymandering is an interesting issue. I don’t know how you solve it without it being political. You’ll never get some bipartisan or non-political commission to solve it. Maybe chuck population density data into a computer and every 4 years or so it spits out new districts at random.

He talks about 10 million people having to wait at least 30 minutes to vote. 30 minutes is not a long time. I waited that long in my nice cushy suburban town. And it’s only like 6% of the 161 million people who voted. Maybe we could tax that 61% who don’t pay any income tax to pay for more polling stations.

And how would public funding of candidates work? Who gets to decide what candidates get funding? Can everyone run for office and get public campaign money? Would people who’ve worked their ass off and accumulated wealth not be allowed to spend their own money?

2 Likes

I may get heat for this, but I have always said that those that don’t pay any federal income tax are effectively biased voters. I have always said they have no financial skin in the game and are usually the first ones to call out people for not “giving their fair share” or being greedy. You contribute nothing, so how about you sit down and be quiet over there in the corner like a child.

They have more incentive to vote for whoever will “give” them more.

1 Like

Nope, because 13 free and independent states had to be convinced to voluntarily enter into the agreement.