Political involvement
Printed From: HairBoutique.com
Category: Hair Talk
Forum Name: Hair Politics
Forum Description: The politics of Hair is a slippery slope...
URL: /forum_posts.php?TID=8783
Printed Date: Dec 26, 2024 at 9:19am
Topic: Political involvement
Posted By: KathyAnn
Subject: Political involvement
Date Posted: Jun 29, 2003 at 5:26pm
*Hello everyone.
*This isn't hair related per se but it is political, so I thought I would just give everyone a gentle reminder.
*A democracy only works well , and for everyday people, if people get involved in politics.
*Less than half of the American voting age population votes in your average election. *Therefore monied people, lobbyists, the rich, and special interests,( liberal and conservative), have too much say in how our country is governed.
*In the long run this isn't good. Only in recent decades has voter participation fallen to such low levels.
*It is important that ordinary citizens not only vote, which is a nice privledge for us to have, but for everyday people to get involved with the political party of their choice, to assure that good people run for office and get on the ballot.
*Those of us who live in democracies are fortunate people. Let's make certain that our political process does not become too corrupt or too unrepresentative of what is good for middle class/working class people, small business people and our country.
Whether you are a Democrat. a Republican, or an Independent or belong to another political party, please get involved!!! It does make a difference.
Thanks !!!
|
Replies: 31
Posted By: KathyAnn
Date Posted: Jun 29, 2003 at 5:26pm
*Hello everyone.
*This isn't hair related per se but it is political, so I thought I would just give everyone a gentle reminder.
*A democracy only works well , and for everyday people, if people get involved in politics.
*Less than half of the American voting age population votes in your average election. *Therefore monied people, lobbyists, the rich, and special interests,( liberal and conservative), have too much say in how our country is governed.
*In the long run this isn't good. Only in recent decades has voter participation fallen to such low levels.
*It is important that ordinary citizens not only vote, which is a nice privledge for us to have, but for everyday people to get involved with the political party of their choice, to assure that good people run for office and get on the ballot.
*Those of us who live in democracies are fortunate people. Let's make certain that our political process does not become too corrupt or too unrepresentative of what is good for middle class/working class people, small business people and our country.
Whether you are a Democrat. a Republican, or an Independent or belong to another political party, please get involved!!! It does make a difference.
Thanks !!!
|
Posted By: uzma
Date Posted: Jun 29, 2003 at 5:41pm
Hi KathyAnn
This thread belongs on the "Philosophize" board.
Perhaps one of the Moderators can move it there.
Thanks. ), R '. `p %
|
Posted By: Jennifer
Date Posted: Jun 29, 2003 at 11:48pm
>>>>*Less than half of the American voting age population votes in your average election. *Therefore monied people, lobbyists, the rich, and special interests,( liberal and conservative), have too much say in how our country is governed.
Why award apathy?
Is anyone preventing the apathetic voters from voting? It seems to me that elections are generally well-publicized. If someone doesn't care enough about how the country is run to vote (polls are open to 9pm in my area, to help accommodate those who have to work late), then why should we accommodate those people?
If one does absolutely nothing (by not voting) and expects that the world will turn the way he wants, that self-absorbent person will be sorely disappointed that life doesn't appear the way he wants when he snaps his fingers.
Opportunity may knock, but it goes nowhere if we don't answer the door!
|
Posted By: Kintaro
Date Posted: Jun 30, 2003 at 12:34pm
Some people like me are in areas that voting DOESN'T make a difference. Western Quebec is one of them. So is Zimbabwe, the difference is that the employers of a lot of people here (the federal gov) says if they ever separated, they'd lose their jobs INSTANTLY.
Threats work well. And when you have 75 % voting the same way, either you add to their majority or donkey vote. I was too tired to do either, and my situation didn't permiot me to vote that day. (! A al` eb (% $b` /6(bb !.$ ,-$! -- % ( Bp $
|
Posted By: Jennifer
Date Posted: Jun 30, 2003 at 1:05pm
 #d` %$@($ ``b
I was under the impression that Canada's prime minister and the Cabinet members are voted into office by the citizens of Canada.
Is that incorrect?
|
Posted By: HeadBoy
Date Posted: Jul 2, 2003 at 3:58pm
Voting is important and it does make a difference.
I read somewhere that Adolph Hitler won control of the Nazi party by one vote. Bush and Gore came down to very few votes in Florida. In the last elections where I live, two board of aldermen seats were decided by one vote each. A third was won by 18 votes.
I'm a Libertarian and vote in every election. It is true that elections are well-publicized, but most often, it requires vast amounts of money to run an affective campaign. To get elected as a third party candidate when the debate is often restricted to the two major parties in near impossible.
In the last presidential election Harry Browne, Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader received plenty of votes, though not enough to carry even one state. Their efforts are to be commended. I voted for Browne and would again tomorrow.
I'm not advocating my political beliefs to anyone, just saying that there are more than two choices in most elections. If not, we all could use a bit more motivation in running ourselves. I ran for office once and got clobbered by the Republican Party Machine. It was, however, a clean race where my opponent chose not to sling mud.
Mud slinging and apathy have become the rule of the day regarding elections in America. Sad but true.
No, we should not reward apathy. We should, however, get a more level playing field in elections, attempt to include legitimate candidates in the debates and encourage our friends and family who do not vote to do so.
If a person does not vote, they should not complain about elected officials. Just my opinion, what's yours?
!!! `g add
|
Posted By: Rod
Date Posted: Jul 2, 2003 at 4:20pm
The U.S. is a society where people not only have the right to vote, but the right not to vote. I'm proud to be in a country where people have the right to be apathetic. Saying people have to vote puts us in a police state.
I'm glad not voting doesn't take away their right to complain. Personally, I hate complainers and like doers. While they may not be justified in complaining, they have the right.
I'm glad they don't vote. Democracy is a stupid form of government. Uninformed people will usually make populist decisions based on incomplete information. Most bond issues and propositions that are put to a popular vote are voted down because people look at the bottom line of spending money and don't analyze the referendum.
Democracy results in inaction and inertia. Fortunately, the U.S. isn't a democracy, but a republic. Look at some of the people we elect democratically. Some are dishonest and others are idiots. Still, the hope is the good professional people who should know more than I do are running things things well rather than the masses.
So, no I don't think everyone should get involved. They have the right not to do so.
|
Posted By: HeadBoy
Date Posted: Jul 2, 2003 at 4:25pm
Rod, I find myself agreeing with your post.
Yes, we are fortunate to live in a Republic.
Certainly people who do not vote have a right to complain, I just would prefer not to hear them. Maybe I should have said it that way.
!!! `g add
|
Posted By: Jennifer
Date Posted: Jul 2, 2003 at 4:44pm
 emocracy is a stupid form of government. |
What do you think is a better form?
| ninformed people will usually make populist decisions based on incomplete information. |
No doubt, but who gets to decide who is "informed" enough to make the decisions for these people?
|
Posted By: Rod
Date Posted: Jul 2, 2003 at 5:07pm
T@$@$ "``` 2
What do you think is a better form?
A republic, like the one we live in.
| ninformed people will usually make populist decisions based on incomplete information. |
No doubt, but who gets to decide who is "informed" enough to make the decisions for these people?
[/QUOTE]
The uninformed people do. The founding fathers, in their brilliance, made this call. They assumed that smart politicians would be elected and make informed choices.
Recently, I had a long discussion with a foreign national. Her country overwhelmingly was opposed to the war. Her government entered the war anyway. While she wasn't opposed to the Iraq War necessarily, she felt that on such an important issue their PM should let the people vote.
I'm not taking a stand on the war one way or another, only that the right person made the decision in her country, our country, and Canada, which didn't enter the war. When I say the right person, I'm not saying Bush is the best person to make that decision but that, if we do our job right, the U.S. President is. People should vote on few issues. They should elect smart people to make those calls.
|
Posted By: Jennifer
Date Posted: Jul 2, 2003 at 5:31pm
|
Rod, do you advocate changing local and state governments to republics, since you think democracy is stupid?
|
Posted By: Rod
Date Posted: Jul 2, 2003 at 5:35pm
#d $' @$$ ````
They already are republican forms of government. We elect governers, state senators, state reps, mayors, city councilmen, and anyone else who runs our government.
I can't think of any government in our country that is democratic and everyone votes on everything.
|
Posted By: Jennifer
Date Posted: Jul 2, 2003 at 5:45pm
I think we should clarify the terms republic and democracy.
A democracy is a government in which the people hold the ruling power either directly or through elected representatives (what we do at the local and state levels -- we vote directly for the governor and representatives).
A republic is a nation in which the supreme power rests in all the citizens entitled to vote (the electorate) and is exercised by representatives elected, directly or indirectly, by them and responsible to them.
So, is a democracy where people vote on each and every issue? The difference between the two seems subtle.
|
Posted By: Jennifer
Date Posted: Jul 2, 2003 at 6:27pm
You know what? This stuff is confusing. Here's something I found on the web:
The United States is a Republic which follows the ideals of a Representative Democracy. Our Electoral College is an example of voting via a Representative Democracy.
http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure1.htm - http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure1.htm
So, are we not a Representative Democracy? I do understand that under a direct democracy, there are no "middlemen" and each person votes directly for the decision. And, for obvious reasons, our country is far too large for that. But, why can't we be called a Representative Democracy?
|
Posted By: HeadBoy
Date Posted: Jul 3, 2003 at 7:40am
Like the Pledge of Allegiance says ...
"And to the Republic for which it stands."
We are a Republic.
Yes, the differences are subtle, but vital.
Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and the rest of our founding fathers were very smart to set up America as they did.
We're free to speak our minds, believe in God or choose not to do so, and much more. We do get the people in office we vote for. I think our process is the best there is, though if we don't vote we get elected officials who are not necessarily the best example of who we are collectively. Good process, bad results.
I won't insult Bush, even though I didn't vote for him, he did get more than 271 Electoral College votes. So he won. The process of a Republic works. We just need to get more people involved.!!! `g add
|
Posted By: Jennifer
Date Posted: Jul 3, 2003 at 8:22am
|
Can anyone answer my questions? Why are we not a Representative Democracy?
|
Posted By: tina m
Date Posted: Jul 3, 2003 at 10:45am
We are both a Republic and a democracy.
All Kathy was saying is that everyday people should get involved in politics, so that politics won't be run entirely by the rich and wealthy special interests.
Noboby has to vote. I sometimes don't.
Of course we have the right to be apathetic and non-involved.
But if we don't get involved then we have no influence obviously.4!,!
|
Posted By: Jennifer
Date Posted: Jul 3, 2003 at 10:55am
| e are both a Republic and a democracy. |
I think the problem is that the word "democracy" entails different varieties. The US is obviously not a direct democracy, yet I see no reason why we can't be called a representative democracy.
|
Posted By: SuperGrover
Date Posted: Jul 3, 2003 at 1:21pm
Perhaps because our representatives often make decisions that benefit the lobbyists that stuff their pockets and not on behalf of what's best for the public?
A quick and easy example is that stupid media deregulation that passed a few weeks ago. Any person educated on the ways of the media will tell you that's NOT a good thing for anyone but the few CEOs of the few media conglomerates.
And HeadBoy! I just wanted to shout out I'm a Libertarian, too!
The FCC is one of the only areas where I favor governmental control.  !) ic a p`` -& `b . @p )2 ,-$ ! ! $ -$ ` ,
|
Posted By: Rod
Date Posted: Jul 3, 2003 at 1:51pm
As an educated person who has worked on the business side of media, I can tell you that the issue isn't as simple as you make it out to be. It benefits a lot more people than a few CEOs and media conglomerates. Many of the perceived drawbacks consumers sight aren't going to materialize. I don't like it for business reasons, not consumer reasons.
Jennifer, a republic is basically a representative democracy.
|
Posted By: HeadBoy
Date Posted: Jul 3, 2003 at 4:48pm
Howdy SuperGrover!
It is cool to see my fellow Libertarian proud to call themselves as such. We're a small but growing bunch.
The fastest growing party in America.
The government that governs best governs least.
That's my opinion, Thomas Jefferson's actually, what's everyone elses?!!! `g add
|
Posted By: HeadBoy
Date Posted: Jul 3, 2003 at 4:48pm
Howdy SuperGrover!
It is cool to see my fellow Libertarian proud to call themselves as such. We're a small but growing bunch.
The fastest growing party in America.
The government that governs best governs least.
That's my opinion, Thomas Jefferson's actually, what's everyone elses?!!! `g add
|
Posted By: HeadBoy
Date Posted: Jul 3, 2003 at 4:50pm
Posted twice. I hate when that happens.
Sorry everybody.!!! `g add
|
Posted By: Girl Tia
Date Posted: Jul 3, 2003 at 7:08pm
Thank you Kathy Ann for bringing up this topic.
I have read on your posts that you are a lebian woman in a relationship with another woman here, a bi-sexual woman Tina. Hi to you both.
I am a gay male in the process of becoming a woman. I wear my hair long mid-back, jet black hair. I dress as a female. Have already had my breasts done.
I am also Asian(Chinese-American).
As a sexual and ethnic minority I do feel it is important to vote.< , B`&
|
Posted By: tina m
Date Posted: Jul 3, 2003 at 8:34pm
Hello Girl Tia.
Nice to have you on the board.
Best wishes on your transition. Your hair must be beautiful. Asians have such lovely hair! 4!,!
|
Posted By: SuperGrover
Date Posted: Jul 3, 2003 at 11:33pm
# `. %$P" d` `e2
Oh that's true. There are many reasons not to like it.
They say the rates will drop and the quality of technology will increase. Bull! They've deregulated several times before and we've yet to see any benefit.
Congratulations, Girl Tia! I know it can't be easy. But as long as your happy in the end, that's what matters. !) ic a p`` -& `b . @p )2 ,-$ ! ! $ -$ ` ,
|
Posted By: Jennifer
Date Posted: Jul 4, 2003 at 8:35am
he government that governs best governs least.
That's my opinion, Thomas Jefferson's actually, what's everyone elses? |
I abhor following trends. If long hair for all women ever became the norm, I'd almost be tempted to cut my hair!
However, I must follow my heart. I want as much freedom in my life as possible (while protecting children and providing justice to all and punishing criminals).
Thus, I too, am a libertarian. What makes me sad, however, is that although the party is growing, there just doesn't seem to be quite enough to make a third party viable on voting ballets to really give the other two parties a run for their money.
One day soon, I hope!
|
Posted By: SuperGrover
Date Posted: Jul 4, 2003 at 10:59am
Oh Jennifer, I wouldn't worry yet. Being a Libertarian isn't exactly what I call trendy. But I'm with you on the hair.
The NYC Libertarians are kind of embarrassing. They were a big media spectacle a few months back when they were handing out toy guns to kids in front of a public school in Harlem and they pissed the kids' parents off royal and started a big argument in front of the school. (The city had been considering outlawing all toy guns because some kids had been shot by the police recently. They were holding toy guns that the police thought were real. NYC is crazy authoritarian like that. They have laws for EVERYTHING.)
Now, I agree with the Libertarians' point, but I don't think that was the way to go about it. They totally set themselves up to look like idiots on the nightly news. And the guy who was leading it was clearly a moron. Who put that guy in a position of leadership?
That's the party's main problem. We need good, charismatic leaders that appeal to all Americans, not just those of us already in the party. I voted for Harry Browne, but I really was voting for the party. Harry Browne just is not good presidential material. We need a better candidiate for 2004. I'm sure they're working on it.
The problem is the same as always. Anyone you would really want to be president is smart enough to know he doesn't want the job. !) ic a p`` -& `b . @p )2 ,-$ ! ! $ -$ ` ,
|
Posted By: KathyAnn
Date Posted: Jul 5, 2003 at 9:04pm
I want to thank everyone for their input and responses!
|
Posted By: KathyAnn
Date Posted: Jul 5, 2003 at 9:04pm
I want to thank everyone for their input and responses!
Sorry double post!
Thanks again!
|
Posted By: HeadBoy
Date Posted: Jul 6, 2003 at 12:54pm
Hi all,
Jennifer, third parties are making a solid impact.
Bush was elected because of third party candidates,
Clinton was elected because of third party candidate Ross Perot. There are plenty of times when third party folks get elected in local races. On the most visible scale, I point to Jesse Ventura getting elected governor of Minnesota...
By the way, Abe Lincoln was a third party candidate elected president.
Maybe Harry Browne is not the best presidential candidate, but he is raising awareness for Libertarianism. Here in Missouri, the Libertarian party is small, but in California -- where I lived my entire life until last year -- the party makes an impact on the state.
By all means, we must be true to our hearts and vote for who or what we think is best on each issue in each election. I voted for Harry Browne because I felt he was the best of the five candidates on the ballot (there are always more than two people running for president, though the big media only plays lip service at best to thatt fact).
!!! `g add
|
Posted By: tina m
Date Posted: Jul 6, 2003 at 7:41pm
All third parties are doing is getting creeps elected.
Without Ross Perot's votes in 1996, Bob Dole, -(an honorable and mature statesman)- would have beaten Clinton the liar.
Without Ralph Nader's votes in 2000, Al Gore-(a boring guy and not a great politician but honorable and responsible)- would have beaten George W., the country club brat whose policies are now driving the country deep into debt for the next couple of generations.
I'm not really a political person but I do have common sense.
Since the last time a third party got elected to President was, I believe Lincoln in 1861, and it will probably be another 150 years before another one gets elected, why don't Americans do this; nominate decent, responsible people for the Republicans and Democrats, and then elect somebody decent and responsible for a change.
Third party canidates? Good luck, you will need it! 4!,!
|
|
| | | |