Posted On: Wednesday - December 7th 2022 2:17PM MST
In Topics: Elections '16 - '24 General Stupidity Americans US Feral Government
"That is the stupid question."
- Billy Shakesphere (You know, like shaking the magic 8-ball? Nah? Nevermind.)
This is a catch-up post. There is an abundance, nay, a real cornucopia, if I may, of stupidity all around to write about, and this is not timely either, but I decided to write more on this a month back, and gosh darnit, I will. (Today is also the 81st memorial of the Pearl Harbor attack - the date above reminded me.)
If they were Indians, they would be called "The People of the I-77/40/85 Corridor" or, in the tradition of the usual racist Indians, just "The People". Sometimes the Washington Post can actually be useful for something.
The question came up under the Peak Stupidity post "Well, it beats Sportsball." written this past election day, which was a month ago tomorrow. Why bother voting? The election system has been voting in various ways, and one can't make a difference even if it were fair. We voted though, as per the post - beats a game of thug football, IMHO.
I wrote in an iSteve comment that perhaps the only reason was to get out in the fresh air and take a walk. After all, our Congressman would win whether we came out or not.
Firstly, this area has been gerrymandered all to hell. The original idea of the Congressional districts was to have somewhat even boundaries around areas that were proportional to population, possibly using natural boundaries, but at least roads or railroads. Exact lat/long boundaries may not work. After all, you don't want to take a line right across someone's living room - come to think of it, that might work for some families. ;-} Nah, but we all know the deal now. No matter what squad of the UniParty these people are in, they all are agreed on the idea that each should get to stay in this big Washington FS (cocktail) Party as long as possible.
So, State Legislatures work this out, definitely with some thought to consolidating power - I'll give them that - to where this one guy is bound to win here, and this other guy is bound to win there. That's where we stand. On one side of a particular street, the guy I'd rather see win, WILL win, and on the other side of that street, the guy I'd rather see lose, WILL win. We went over there and voted for one of those guys*. It didn't matter.
Even if this were a true small-scale democracy, has a candidate ever won by one vote, MY vote, that is? There'd be a recount, and even the fairest of elections will probably have some error somewhere. OK how about 2 votes, then? I've not seen that either. It's gotta be even worse for those married to the political enemy. Why bother walking over there? It'd all be the same if it were 35F outside, pouring rain, and too miserable to go vote... well, unless I were carrying over a couple of hundred ballots straight off my Brother laser printer. (Man, those things are solid!)
Those are all answers in the negative to this question. Are there any "pro"s?
Regarding the big elections, especially for US President, back in the day there were serious 3rd-party candidates - one might call one a 2nd-party or opposition party today. Not going too far back, I remember a Mr. John Anderson from the 1980 election who got 6 1/2% of the vote. Of course, he won no States. I have no problem with our system in that sense. It just means you've got to get BIG eventually, if you're gonna have any influence as a 3rd-party candidate.
Mr. Anderson was not my style anyway, but a dozen years later, 30 years ago this past summer/fall, Ross Perot was. I see him now as a more knowledgeable and more capable proto-Trump. Even after he dropped out of the race in the summer (due to Deep State shenanigans I imagine, but that I couldn't imagine at that age and time) and got back in, he still got almost 19% of the votes cast. Again, he got no States, but his Reform Party tried its best to become an alternative to the UniParty.
From the time G.H.W. Bush talked in Spanish for 30 seconds or so as part of his campaign in 1988, I voted 3rd party. "All they need is to go from 2% of the vote to something like 5%, so they'll matter, and THEN the media will notice them!", I remember thinking. "One more vote for the L guy would make much more difference than another for the Red squad**", I also figured. What I didn't figure on then was the the Lyin' Press wanted nothing to do with these alternatives. Part of their job has been to marginalize those guys. Even when Ron Paul decided to run on the GOP ticket, they marginalized him away from everybody else by early Spring of the '12 campaign.
What is the point again in voting? I have been told in the comments that there is more of a point to NOT voting. The Establishment will get the idea that we think it's the waste of time that it is. I'm not sure about that. I don't think they care. If there's a 25% turnout, they can just save money on campaigning and cheating, or, they'll force us to vote as in Australia. Lotta good that does for anyone. (Then, you've the people that don't even care what happens voting along with you.)
No, we're not voting our way out of the mess America is in. Guys like Pat Buchanan, one of those former reformers I mentioned above, just don't get what's going on anymore. As Peak Stupidity discussed in "I pity the pundit...", his view of American politics as the somewhat civil and law-following environment of the 1980s is naive. From that post (and there's a follow-up post:
I don't read Mr. Buchanan much anymore, because his solutions to our ills are laughably naive. Oh, we just need to wait for the mid-terms, get someone on our side (really, is there anyone?) into the House blah, blah committee, build up a new coalition, wait until the ctrl-left politicians reach across the aisle**, make a better compromise looking forward to 2028 ... while in the meantime one or two MILLION newcomers who don't give a damn about the old Republic enter the country yearly and the ctrl-left just introduces new programs of extreme stupidity to screw the White man continually that Conservative, Inc. won't even fight against.That was harsh, but that's the way it is now.
So, to answer the question posed in our title. YES, if it's nice outside and you could use the exercise. Otherwise, NO, spend the time inside inventorying the ammo.
* Getting into too much detail on boundaries and the squad of the winner/candidate might give too much info for some doxxer. I gotta admit, that'd be a fun project.
** This was back when the GOP was blue and the Democrat red, for a while - they flipped for the TV stations, until it got to obvious that Americans were getting too comfortable with what that red color meant. They had to make it opposite, and damn if it doesn't trip me up about 1/3 of the time!
Comments:
Moderator
Wednesday - December 7th 2022 8:29PM MST
PS: Alarmist, the article does say that this is NOT a Rorschach test, but what does that say about you? Or me, haha?
Sam J, I should have at least the 1st time, but both times I voted L. I think you are right that both squad would have been all over him. The American people, OTOH...
"Myself, and 99 other individuals, defeated him in a primary." You mean he lost by only that 100 votes?
Sam J, I should have at least the 1st time, but both times I voted L. I think you are right that both squad would have been all over him. The American people, OTOH...
"Myself, and 99 other individuals, defeated him in a primary." You mean he lost by only that 100 votes?
Sam J.
Wednesday - December 7th 2022 7:32PM MST
PS
Gerrymandering is not all bad. I was part of a gerrymandered district and the Representative was a full blown commie nut. He was hideous. Myself, and 99 other individuals, defeated him in a primary. Maybe what we got was not all we wanted but it was better than him.
Gerrymandering is not all bad. I was part of a gerrymandered district and the Representative was a full blown commie nut. He was hideous. Myself, and 99 other individuals, defeated him in a primary. Maybe what we got was not all we wanted but it was better than him.
Sam J.
Wednesday - December 7th 2022 7:28PM MST
PS
I voted for Ross Perot twice. Because he was for the middle class. We don't need a party for the rich or the liberals or the poor. We need a middle class American party that does the best it can for all of us. The reason I did, knowing he wasn't likely to win, was that you can't get what you want if you will not vote for it, and Bush and his ilk never had my best interest at heart.
If he had won and kept from being assassinated, I bet he would have been a great President, but the whole time he would have been in office he would have been attacked right and left constantly.
I voted for Ross Perot twice. Because he was for the middle class. We don't need a party for the rich or the liberals or the poor. We need a middle class American party that does the best it can for all of us. The reason I did, knowing he wasn't likely to win, was that you can't get what you want if you will not vote for it, and Bush and his ilk never had my best interest at heart.
If he had won and kept from being assassinated, I bet he would have been a great President, but the whole time he would have been in office he would have been attacked right and left constantly.
The Alarmist
Wednesday - December 7th 2022 7:09PM MST
PS
Striking resemblance to a vaxx clot.
Striking resemblance to a vaxx clot.
Moderator
Wednesday - December 7th 2022 6:53PM MST
PS: Ha, I never thought about trying that, Robert. I wonder if that's a bug or a feature.
Robert
Wednesday - December 7th 2022 6:47PM MST
PS: A while back, I tried handing in a blank ballot as a protest, but the machine wouldn't take it.
But... I was not old enough to vote in '92. I would vote for Ross Perot today. (Ya know, if he were alive and running and what not.)
But alas. I do not vote because I do not believe in democracy.
(Just sayin'.)(This is not my beautiful republic.)(And democracy is mob rule.)
I do wish I could believe. (I really do.) But I no longer believe.
I have lost my faith in the electoral process and democracy in general.
I wish I could believe.
☮