Comments on: Top 25 Things I’ve Learned From the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election http://www.c4chaos.com/2008/09/top-25-things-ive-learned-from-the-2008-us-presidential-election/ (hyper)streaming with passion and compassion Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:04:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: I Just Casted My Vote for Obama-Biden < ~C4Chaos http://www.c4chaos.com/2008/09/top-25-things-ive-learned-from-the-2008-us-presidential-election/comment-page-1/#comment-3131 I Just Casted My Vote for Obama-Biden < ~C4Chaos Sun, 26 Oct 2008 04:23:16 +0000 http://www.c4chaos.com/?p=2986#comment-3131 [...] a result, I’ve learned a lot of things in U.S. politics that I never paid attention to before. And for the first time in my life I contributed to a [...] [...] a result, I’ve learned a lot of things in U.S. politics that I never paid attention to before. And for the first time in my life I contributed to a [...]

]]> By: c4chaos http://www.c4chaos.com/2008/09/top-25-things-ive-learned-from-the-2008-us-presidential-election/comment-page-1/#comment-3102 c4chaos Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:50:41 +0000 http://www.c4chaos.com/?p=2986#comment-3102 Oneness, the person who coined "People are idiot" is Scott Adams. see Dilbert Principle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dilbert_Principle incidentally, Scott Adams just did a survey of economists on who has the better economic plan, Obama or McCain. most economists who participated in the survey (Democrats and Independents) lean towards Obama. see http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/dilbert_survey_of_economists/ bottom line: people are not only unaware of who they are. they are also unaware of important issues. hence, people are idiots :) ~C Oneness,

the person who coined “People are idiot” is Scott Adams. see Dilbert Principle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dilbert_Principle

incidentally, Scott Adams just did a survey of economists on who has the better economic plan, Obama or McCain.

most economists who participated in the survey (Democrats and Independents) lean towards Obama.

see http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/dilbert_survey_of_economists/

bottom line: people are not only unaware of who they are. they are also unaware of important issues. hence, people are idiots :)

~C

]]> By: Oneness http://www.c4chaos.com/2008/09/top-25-things-ive-learned-from-the-2008-us-presidential-election/comment-page-1/#comment-3101 Oneness Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:16:42 +0000 http://www.c4chaos.com/?p=2986#comment-3101 People are not idiots. They're just unaware of who they really are. And the one who said people are idiots is also unaware of Who He Really Is. Otherwise, he would not say that people are idiots. Rather, I agree that the Ego is probabaly an idiot. People are not idiots. They’re just unaware of who they really are. And the one who said people are idiots is also unaware of Who He Really Is. Otherwise, he would not say that people are idiots. Rather, I agree that the Ego is probabaly an idiot.

]]> By: Nicholas MacDonald http://www.c4chaos.com/2008/09/top-25-things-ive-learned-from-the-2008-us-presidential-election/comment-page-1/#comment-3099 Nicholas MacDonald Sun, 14 Sep 2008 01:54:28 +0000 http://www.c4chaos.com/?p=2986#comment-3099 In a past life as a (failed) political scientist, I learned that the fate of any electoral system can basically be summed up by the simple equation X+1, where X is equal to the number of positions available in any given electoral race, and the total (X+1) determines how many parties will be viable. All major American elections (practically everything above the city level- and those elections tend to be non-partisan) are "first past the post"- only one person can win. Therefore, there can only be two viable parties in any given district. In a parliamentary system, this allows for many functional minority parties (such as the LD's, Greens, and various Nationalist parties in England), but a Presidential system precludes that (as everyone ultimately has to rally around the same two parties candidates). Now, place this system in a country as large and diverse as America, and the system ends up spiraling into what I like to call a "Meaningless Manicheanism"- a senseless two-party dualism in which both parties can do nothing but oppose the other, and political philosophies ultimately become meaningless, replaced with tags emptied of value (Left! Right! Liberal! Conservative!). Fareed Zakaria observed this in the book he wrote a few years ago, "The Future of Freedom". The parties are whatever agenda the leading candidates pour into them. My sister works for the Democratic party. I have a co-worker who is a staunch Republican (one of the few Americans that I work with). When I mentioned to him my sister's current job, his immediate response was, "I'm sorry." When I inquired a little more about his political opinions, he brought up something that hit it all home- "All the Democrats ever do is oppose! If we're for something, they're against it!" I've heard my sister say the EXACT. SAME. THING. About the Democrats, and how all the Republicans do is oppose... oppose... oppose. So I opt out of this maddening and meaningless system. I have that luxury; absentee voting is enough of a pain in the ass, and there's no race to speak of in South Dakota this year. At the same time, it's hard to say if other systems are really better. Some allow for more spread of representation, but don't use it- Japan's "X+1" comes out at 6, yet the country's politics continue to be dominated by a single mega-party (The LDP) and a group of minor parties that can't work together long enough to create a stable coalition. Switzerland and Israel have systems in which the possible number of parties in bounded only by the size of the legislature- yet this system is really only suitable for very small countries, not continent-spanning empires. Or there's the Chinese option. One party makes the rules. It's damn effective... but it's also corrupt, stupid, frustrating, and occasionally brutal. I would not recommend this path to any developed nation. Especially one sitting on the largest arsenal on the planet. In a past life as a (failed) political scientist, I learned that the fate of any electoral system can basically be summed up by the simple equation X+1, where X is equal to the number of positions available in any given electoral race, and the total (X+1) determines how many parties will be viable. All major American elections (practically everything above the city level- and those elections tend to be non-partisan) are “first past the post”- only one person can win. Therefore, there can only be two viable parties in any given district. In a parliamentary system, this allows for many functional minority parties (such as the LD’s, Greens, and various Nationalist parties in England), but a Presidential system precludes that (as everyone ultimately has to rally around the same two parties candidates).

Now, place this system in a country as large and diverse as America, and the system ends up spiraling into what I like to call a “Meaningless Manicheanism”- a senseless two-party dualism in which both parties can do nothing but oppose the other, and political philosophies ultimately become meaningless, replaced with tags emptied of value (Left! Right! Liberal! Conservative!). Fareed Zakaria observed this in the book he wrote a few years ago, “The Future of Freedom”. The parties are whatever agenda the leading candidates pour into them.

My sister works for the Democratic party. I have a co-worker who is a staunch Republican (one of the few Americans that I work with). When I mentioned to him my sister’s current job, his immediate response was, “I’m sorry.” When I inquired a little more about his political opinions, he brought up something that hit it all home- “All the Democrats ever do is oppose! If we’re for something, they’re against it!”

I’ve heard my sister say the EXACT. SAME. THING.

About the Democrats, and how all the Republicans do is oppose… oppose… oppose.

So I opt out of this maddening and meaningless system. I have that luxury; absentee voting is enough of a pain in the ass, and there’s no race to speak of in South Dakota this year.

At the same time, it’s hard to say if other systems are really better. Some allow for more spread of representation, but don’t use it- Japan’s “X+1″ comes out at 6, yet the country’s politics continue to be dominated by a single mega-party (The LDP) and a group of minor parties that can’t work together long enough to create a stable coalition. Switzerland and Israel have systems in which the possible number of parties in bounded only by the size of the legislature- yet this system is really only suitable for very small countries, not continent-spanning empires.

Or there’s the Chinese option. One party makes the rules. It’s damn effective… but it’s also corrupt, stupid, frustrating, and occasionally brutal. I would not recommend this path to any developed nation. Especially one sitting on the largest arsenal on the planet.

]]> By: c4chaos http://www.c4chaos.com/2008/09/top-25-things-ive-learned-from-the-2008-us-presidential-election/comment-page-1/#comment-3092 c4chaos Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:40:30 +0000 http://www.c4chaos.com/?p=2986#comment-3092 Siona, the two-party US electoral system has its strengths. i grew up in a democratic country where any idiot who has a political ambition can start a party. elections are won through popularity and pandering to the poor and uneducated. it's more corrupt, disastrous, chaotic, and somewhat funny. that said, there are some saner (or hopelessly idealistic :)) voices who are calling for <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv7R19xL9Is" rel="nofollow">"Third Way" politics</a>. i'm sure you've heard of them already ;) ~C Siona,

the two-party US electoral system has its strengths. i grew up in a democratic country where any idiot who has a political ambition can start a party. elections are won through popularity and pandering to the poor and uneducated. it’s more corrupt, disastrous, chaotic, and somewhat funny.

that said, there are some saner (or hopelessly idealistic :) ) voices who are calling for “Third Way” politics. i’m sure you’ve heard of them already ;)

~C

]]> By: Siona http://www.c4chaos.com/2008/09/top-25-things-ive-learned-from-the-2008-us-presidential-election/comment-page-1/#comment-3090 Siona Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:13:34 +0000 http://www.c4chaos.com/?p=2986#comment-3090 To me, the two-party US electoral system has more in common with a spectator sport such as baseball or football--where the differences between the players or fans on each opposing team are negligible and the whole game serves as a fantastically effective distraction from the deeper issues, and from what really matters--than it does a democratic system of government. Just sayin'. To me, the two-party US electoral system has more in common with a spectator sport such as baseball or football–where the differences between the players or fans on each opposing team are negligible and the whole game serves as a fantastically effective distraction from the deeper issues, and from what really matters–than it does a democratic system of government.

Just sayin’.

]]> By: Jessica http://www.c4chaos.com/2008/09/top-25-things-ive-learned-from-the-2008-us-presidential-election/comment-page-1/#comment-3089 Jessica Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:21:24 +0000 http://www.c4chaos.com/?p=2986#comment-3089 You have read my mind. This is an awesome list. This election, more than anything, makes me realize a lot about our society. I can't help but be surprised by the madness, but what do I expect with "culture" the way it is. There's such addiction to drama and little sense and reason. I hope the "people are idiots" strategy doesn't work. As I said, where's Orwell when you need him? You have read my mind. This is an awesome list. This election, more than anything, makes me realize a lot about our society. I can’t help but be surprised by the madness, but what do I expect with “culture” the way it is. There’s such addiction to drama and little sense and reason. I hope the “people are idiots” strategy doesn’t work.

As I said, where’s Orwell when you need him?

]]> By: c4chaos http://www.c4chaos.com/2008/09/top-25-things-ive-learned-from-the-2008-us-presidential-election/comment-page-1/#comment-3088 c4chaos Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:18:17 +0000 http://www.c4chaos.com/?p=2986#comment-3088 <blockquote>"Can I ask why aren’t you voting for Ron Paul..."</blockquote> Dean, thanks for asking. i like Ron Paul. even more than McCain. it's debatable but i believe that Obama's policies and vision would be better for the U.S. in the long run, even if we have to make some sacrifices to get there. but more importantly, my worldview is more aligned with Obama's idealism. see: http://www.c4chaos.com/2008/08/we-pick-the-presidential-candidate-who-shares-our-worldview/ i guess we'll just have to wait and see. ~C

“Can I ask why aren’t you voting for Ron Paul…”

Dean,

thanks for asking.

i like Ron Paul. even more than McCain. it’s debatable but i believe that Obama’s policies and vision would be better for the U.S. in the long run, even if we have to make some sacrifices to get there.

but more importantly, my worldview is more aligned with Obama’s idealism.

see: http://www.c4chaos.com/2008/08/we-pick-the-presidential-candidate-who-shares-our-worldview/

i guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

~C

]]> By: Dean http://www.c4chaos.com/2008/09/top-25-things-ive-learned-from-the-2008-us-presidential-election/comment-page-1/#comment-3085 Dean Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:19:03 +0000 http://www.c4chaos.com/?p=2986#comment-3085 Can I ask why aren't you voting for Ron Paul (even if you have to write him in the ballot)? Symbols are important, I get that, and when Obama presented himself as the anti-war candidate I liked him too. But increasingly the difference he represents seems more and more superficial (Afgahnistan is NOT that different, it is increasingly revealing itself to be an unwanted occupation as well). A man that sticks to his guns as everyone around him ridicules him for decades, and humbly and gracefully rides the wave of support he gets as this self-taught economics student gets everything pretty much right when all the experts got it all wrong (and they still ignore him) - now that's change I can believe in. I don't agree with all his stances on things but Ron Paul has still inspired me powerfully. The buzz I get from Obama is real too but feels kind of like empty calories or Red Bull or something. Ron Paul is the slowly developed lovingly cooked whole meal. Can I ask why aren’t you voting for Ron Paul (even if you have to write him in the ballot)? Symbols are important, I get that, and when Obama presented himself as the anti-war candidate I liked him too. But increasingly the difference he represents seems more and more superficial (Afgahnistan is NOT that different, it is increasingly revealing itself to be an unwanted occupation as well).

A man that sticks to his guns as everyone around him ridicules him for decades, and humbly and gracefully rides the wave of support he gets as this self-taught economics student gets everything pretty much right when all the experts got it all wrong (and they still ignore him) – now that’s change I can believe in. I don’t agree with all his stances on things but Ron Paul has still inspired me powerfully.

The buzz I get from Obama is real too but feels kind of like empty calories or Red Bull or something. Ron Paul is the slowly developed lovingly cooked whole meal.

]]>