Elections in USA are pointless?

[antisocial one]

I am not American so I must ask you this. (I am from Europe)
I observe geopolitical scene so I am not amateur in things like this.
Also I want to know what American voters (others are wellcome) think about this.

I see that all around the world elections in USA are very popular topic and many Americans treat that elections like a salvation.
My question is - why?

I ask why, because elections will not change many government officials plus election will not change officials in banks and stock markets as well as people who run big business.



1. So my point is if this administration is not able to find solution why next one could.
To strengthen my point: people from large companies and stock markets always have some idea how to "repair" economy and what laws and regulations should be created to insure recovery.

But if that mechanism failed in recent years I doubt that it is because current administration is ignoring advices. Of course they are ignoring some advices but they can t ignore many of them and hope to stay in position.

If you elect another president it does not matter because again you have same people in same places whit same thinking and situation which is heritage from last administration (read: same trends).Only thing what changes are those few people who stand in front of the camera to announce something.



2. On international level position of USA has weaken drastically.
Short overview

South America is merging just to stop influence of USA in the region.

Middle east hates USA (for obvious reasons)

China and India want to become new promised lands.
(read : economical domination)

Russia not only that it succeed in recovery but it is for the first time has stabile economy. Which is then used to build next generation of military hardware .

EU in recent years started to invest large amount of money in high technology and advanced education hoping to have a last laugh.



My point is that if you want to have things as they were. USA will have to
triumph against all opponents in their specialty.
And that is very unlikely if we take current situation as starting point.

So the only options for USA is to fall apart totally or become one of the players of this game whit balanced strengths.

But there is no way others will allow USA to get advantage of 5 steps again.

3. As student of geology I keep an eye on the oil industry and global warming which is in my field of interest for years but I will skip those arguments because I don´ t want to kill reader whit too much information.

This elections are not useless when it comes to democracy and constitutional law but beside that it looks to me that this is precisely that case.

Maybe my memory is wholly wrong but few years back democrats announce big change when they have won last elections for congress.
But nothing happened because USA is no longer in control.

I am asking all of this because everybody are so excited about this and I dont see why.

So do I have a gap in my information bank or all of this is just a show whit principle: hope is always dying last.:suspicious:

[AJB]

I see that all around the world elections in USA are very popular topic and many Americans treat that elections like a salvation.
My question is - why?

I'm excited to see one of the worst administrations I've ever seen have to finally give up control of this country. With all the potential we have in this country the current administration has seemingly managed to use it for personal gain. In doing so, America has lost it's economy and international reputation.



1. So my point is if this administration is not able to find solution why next one could.

Solution to what problem? Whose to say they even were looking for a solution. This administration has had one agenda from the start. War mongering and profitiering. Using any tactic available to convince the public and congress.


To strengthen my point: people from large companies and stock markets always have some idea how to "repair" economy and what laws and regulations should be created to insure recovery.

But if that mechanism failed in recent years I doubt that it is because current administration is ignoring advices. Of course they are ignoring some advices but they can t ignore many of them and hope to stay in position.

If you elect another president it does not matter because again you have same people in same places whit same thinking and situation which is heritage from last administration (read: same trends).Only thing what changes are those few people who stand in front of the camera to announce something.


They did follow the advice -- the advice of their boardroom buddies. The energy plan and the economic plan for this country was hatched during a series of closed meetings between our executive branch and corporate executives. Executives of companies that our President or Vice President have close economic ties to.

Considering this, whose to say that their policies didn't work exactly as they were intended? The "trickle down" economic policy has put money back into the pockets of the super wealthy and the energy policy has not only resulted in record profits for the oil companies, but also for the large agricultural corporations in this country.


This elections are not useless when it comes to democracy and constitutional law but beside that it looks to me that this is precisely that case.

Maybe my memory is wholly wrong but few years back democrats announce big change when they have won last elections for congress.
But nothing happened because USA is no longer in control.

I am asking all of this because everybody are so excited about this and I dont see why.

So do I have a gap in my information bank or all of this is just a show whit principle: hope is always dying last.:suspicious:


Not all proposed changes are put into effect. Sometimes our official are only merely able to bring these issues into the open for discussion. Often they are required to compromise.

Our system may have its problems, but I have yet to see an alternative system that I would rather have.

Personally, I do think you have a gap in your information bank. I and many other people I converse with and run into are disgusted with the administration's actions. We are excited because we can be. One of the beautiful concepts our founding fathers put into our system was term limits on the president. This allows for the opportunity for the U.S. to change its course when necessary.

[PHS Philip]

Just a few nitpicks, oil companies are making the same % of sales as profit as before. It's just that as prices go up, so will the total profit. The other being that term limits for the president didn't come about until after FDR.

Sorry, overactive J

[antisocial one]

AJB my whole point was that this adminstration created enough problems that next one cant solve them and that means that USA will never be the same again.

[AJB]

PHS -- thanks for the FYI.

anti 1, I do not believe for a minute that the problems are so bad that they cannot be solved. I agree that the U.S. will not be the same as it was, but I do not agree with your reasoning.

[antisocial one]

PHS -- thanks for the FYI.

anti 1, I do not believe for a minute that the problems are so bad that they cannot be solved. I agree that the U.S. will not be the same as it was, but I do not agree with your reasoning.

Then we should both just wait and see what will happen.

By solved problem I mean USA as untouchable global superpower.
My point is that USA simply does not have resources to control everybody else any more because they started to develop independently (to some degree).
But USA needs that control to be what it is.
For example USA has 4.5% of world population but spends about 20 -30% of resources.


Dont get me wrong EU is not angel when it comes to this.

[xtremegeek]

Irish view:
One candidate is a female minority lawyer married to a former president/disbarred lawyer.
Another candidate is a black minority lawyer married to a lawyer.
A third candidate is a war veteran married to woman who owns a beer distribution company.

What's so difficult for you lasses?! Go with the beer distributor!

[SShack]

The U.S. is never the same as it was after every single presidential administration, good or bad. That's both the nation's strength and its weakness. We've had bad presidents before. We've had corrupt administrations before. We've weakened ourselves on the world stage before. We've been in far, far worse positions that we are right now.

The elections are the system for rebounding or recovering or redirecting. There are some serious problems with it (such as the bureaucrats not changing, like you mention) but changes in leadership in both the executive and the legislative branch create an opportunity to control the priorities of the beast.

[MichaelH]

A-1, I think you've hit on something important.

In the two-party system, we don't really get much choice about who is going to be in office. There are policy differences, to be sure, but not usually on major issues. Differences are allowed on "small" things like gay marriage or social security tax, but not on major things like monetary policy or the war in Iraq.

The run-up to this election has showed me how much big money and the media control our political system. Ron Paul had a significant amount of popular support, and said things significantly different than the other republican candidates. He was pointedly not covered by the media and flatly not permitted to continue in the debates. Therefore a large measure of the direction of the country is not directly under our control.

The elections are about three things: influencing the direction of the country to the extent we can, blaming the other side for all of life's problems, and the promise that Things Will Be Different This Time. These three things explain the salvation aspect you get from American elections.

And yes, despite my complaints above, different administrations do steer the country differently. I chafe against the restraints inherent in the system, but I'll admit the system is still one of the better ones. Proportional representation would it improve it markedly, but neither of the two parties in power would gain anything by going to proportional representation.

[antisocial one]

Just to be clear. By elections I mean current ones.

[ArchonAlarion]

Voting is useless... if you have a soul.

Imposing your will on another similar complex chemical process, called an organism, is pretty barbaric. Civilized organisms interact through voluntary means.

I think the politicians, and the corporations behind them, want this country to fall on tough times so they can pull more new deal BS. It is a classic strategy. Make life for your subjects suck, and then blame it on everyone else. Maybe even blame it on big business. Then put regulation boards into place that seem to control big business, but are actually controlled by big business.

YAY!!!

[Provoker]

Good thread. I think something valuable can be drawn here. Western scholars often accused Putin of being anti-democratic for, among many reasons, having control over the media and using it to gain support. While in America, though the news networks are privately owned, they're bought out anyways by big business that's pushing for their candidate. Moreover, having a choice between one of two that make up the partyarchy this is hardly democratic. We mine as well say that congress is privatized as most of those representatives are bought out by big business as well. In fact, I haven't looked at the numbers but you can probably do a study on the amount of money pumped into a person and the probability of that person getting elected. I bet if you study the history of American elections you'll find that the winners tended to have the most money pumped into their campaigns.

anti-1, My fundamental analytical point is this take it or leave it. The parliamentary road is not a road for change because - like you said - there are too many people with a vested interest in the status quo. Thus, to speak of change within the confines of parliamentarism (as Obama is doing) is pure political jargon. All too often, those who get in power get coopted and forced to make compromises and will be unable to implement far-reaching changes. We've seen this happen time and time again throughout history.

Instead, genuine change will usually require the use of direct action via the revolutionary road of social mobilization. That is, hundreds of thousands of Americans pouring into the streets and maximizing the full utility of their political power through protest, riots, marches, etc. That genuine change can occur at the ballot box is a myth - perhaps the most brilliant and at the same time deceptive myth going. How clever to have a system wherein people think they can make a difference through their vote when the highly stratefied economic system is practically cast in concrete. For genuine change to come about, people will need to be more conscious of class dynamics and resist the system that is the cause of their plight.

Until some of these things are realized the difference between choosing a democrat or republican is equivalent to going to the paint store and picking red or blue. It makes no difference in the big scheme of things. America needs fundamental change that can't be attained by electoral politics.

In terms of international relations America, and America's next President is at a crossroads and has a choice to make. To humble itself and fix the relationship with all the countries it has offended. Or to try and reassert its power on the international scene which, I think, will only further harm it. And given the rate China is growing by coupled with Russians who are very unpleased at the US' broken promises including the expansion of NATO and withdrawal from the ABM treaty, plus the middle east, north. k, chavez, cuba, etc countries are likely to rise up in this window of opportunity (the changing of Presidents). The reason is this: If I kick you, beat you, rob you, steal your wife and burn your house you might take it meekly but the resentment accumulates and it burns and it festers. And one day - when you're stronger - and you have the opportunity to get me, you will. This is America's worst nightmare. To avoid such things regardless of who is in office, they need someone to put out the fires created by Bush, switch to a policy of multilateralism in international affairs, and respect the sovereignty of other countries. If not, things will get pretty ugly for America in the 21 c.

[blckprljinju]

who said they were excited about the elections?
the general population isn't really excited about the elections... they don't get excited about it until about a month before the election.
What you see usually is the fanatical party members overly excited about well, i dunno... the candidates... oh, and the media (which is ruled by one person), is also overly excited about it because it helps the ratings more than anything else, and because everything else in status quo is clearly devastating and the "mass" doesn't want to hear about it.

I agree with you that US is not the same as it had been in the 20th century. I fear that in the near future, if some major change is not done within the overall structure, we're just going to be going down a slippery slope.

[PHS Philip]

The US was better in the 20th century? Are you kidding? There were the sedition acts, there were the 2 Red Scares and Senator McCarthy, and all the laws during that era, there was the treatment of blacks, there was our treatment of Central America, there was Vietnam and Nixon, there was FDR's attempt to stack the court by adding justices...

The US has been plagued by the same sort of problems from day 1. Read up on the early presidents. For instance, the Federalists passed laws trying to shut down all opposing groups by arrest and deportation.

[blckprljinju]

The US was better in the 20th century? Are you kidding? There were the sedition acts, there were the 2 Red Scares and Senator McCarthy, and all the laws during that era, there was the treatment of blacks, there was our treatment of Central America, there was Vietnam and Nixon, there was FDR's attempt to stack the court by adding justices...

The US has been plagued by the same sort of problems from day 1. Read up on the early presidents. For instance, the Federalists passed laws trying to shut down all opposing groups by arrest and deportation.

Maybe i should have been more clear... I was thinking more in line of overall international arena than domestic. I agree that the domestic realm was always a mess, but overall, the international view of the United States was certainly better in the 20th century, even with all the mess that was going inside (what's wrong with court-packing? I am not particularly content with the fact that 9 people who do not have to fear answering the public or losing their jobs every election term decide what the Constitution means and whether certain rules and laws are Constitutional).

Of course, we've only been into 8 years of the 21st century, but since I won't be alive when the 22nd century comes around, I cannot assume that US might be at a better place than it was, unless I see some dramatic change that would contradict such thought.

[scholarwarrior]

The US was better in the 20th century? Are you kidding? There were the sedition acts, there were the 2 Red Scares and Senator McCarthy, and all the laws during that era, there was the treatment of blacks, there was our treatment of Central America, there was Vietnam and Nixon, there was FDR's attempt to stack the court by adding justices...

The US has been plagued by the same sort of problems from day 1. Read up on the early presidents. For instance, the Federalists passed laws trying to shut down all opposing groups by arrest and deportation.

I agree. Our supposed glory days were marked by exploitation, racism, propaganda, warmongering, and worse all over the place.

Are we losing our place as #1? I would say so, yes. Plenty would hate me to say so, but I don't think that's a bad thing. Means we actually have to listen to other people, and actually try hard to show leadership and to get what we want rather than just force. W hosed things up pretty badly, but so many things were on decline before him, he really just made a bad thing worse (ie. health care, education)

Can the election change anything? Who knows? The system is capable of it, but the embedded powers are resistant to it. When things get bad enough, there will be no choice. Will our next pres be able to do it? Maybe not. Especially since our two candidates, once widely thought to strive for that change, now pander to anyone with a vote in order to win at all costs. Of course its all a game, and who knows what will actually happen once he (whichever) takes office. Its a sickening process, thats for sure.

[mkay]

I definitely feel a sense of futility in voting given our political system in general, and in this election in particular because Bush has created such a ruinous mess that whomever is elected will not be able to pull the U.S. back. I figure this country has been pushed over the tipping point economically. I don't think Bush did this alone, of course, but I can't imagine his administration having done a worse job, not just economically. (For their purposes, which I see as enriching themselves and their friends at all costs, they did a great job. And if you hate big government, a good way to get rid of it is to destroy the economy.)

That said, I've always felt a responsibility to vote. If nothing else, I figure it's a way to say, hey, some of us care, some of us are watching what's going on. It's the same reason I've written to lawmakers in the past, not expecting them to care.

Ultimately, I think the only way to effect real political change is to have money, lots and lots of money.

[md21017md]

I for 1 think it might be good for the US to step down from #1, maybe then we will worry more about this country and less about being big brother to the rest of the world sorting thier problems out to the detriment of our own.

As to voting - if you are speaking of voting for the president, it depends where you live. In many areas; for example the state I live in, the bias is so strong it makes little diference. My state is very democratic - maybe 80% voting for the democratic party. I being a republican, I might as well stay home. We are so out numbered that it makes little diference. The reasoning for this is because we have and electorial college as opposed to a raw number of votes. when a candidate wins the majority for that state, he get's all the electorial votes for that state. Most of the time the president that wins the election also wins the raw number of votes; but not always. The first election for George Jr. won him the election, but if it had been based or raw numbers he would have lost.


I agree to many others; there can be great change; good (as in Ronnie regan) or bad (as in the curent debacle) or things can coast along (Jimmy carter??)

I personally think the election is Obama's to loose. I think this country is so pissed at Bush and by extension the republican party that Mccain hasn't a prayer - unless Obama really screws up. I think whom ever wins will be a 1 term president (unless there is another war or major event for him to shine) and will basically not be able to do much more than house sit, and maybe clean up a little.

This country needs another Teddy Rosevelt, FDR, Ronnie regan type and I don't see any on the horizon. At least none that are willing to run.

[AncientOfDays]

I see that all around the world elections in USA are very popular topic and many Americans treat that elections like a salvation.
My question is - why?

Well the choices are completely different. One is a moderate conservative, with non-conservative views on big issues like immigration and global warming. The other is a stringent leftist who seems to belong to the Bolesheviks. I'm excited because my future and my children's future will be shaped by this and every election of the largest superpower of the free world; and I'm Canadian eh.


I ask why, because elections will not change many government officials plus election will not change officials in banks and stock markets as well as people who run big business.

So what governance of the country will be drastically changed with those same people. Universal health care, or not. Multi-culturalism or not. Etc. The left and right are diametrically opposed so the legislation expected out of the two different possible regimes will reflect that.


1. So my point is if this administration is not able to find solution why next one could.
To strengthen my point: people from large companies and stock markets always have some idea how to "repair" economy and what laws and regulations should be created to insure recovery.

Well since the states isn't looking like a depression but possible recession, the gov't should be doing nothing anyways. It's not gov'ts job to repair economies, only keep them fair and competitive with effacicious statutes.


If you elect another president it does not matter because again you have same people in same places whit same thinking and situation which is heritage from last administration (read: same trends).Only thing what changes are those few people who stand in front of the camera to announce something.

Again this supports my point. Governments don't run economies, free people do. Governemtns ensure the economies are well regulated and taxed as little as possible. The gov't can affect the economy greatly, usually only in one way, negatively by distorting the market. Only positively when introducing crucial legislation to maintain a free, fair market and society.



2. On international level position of USA has weaken drastically.
Short overview

South America is merging just to stop influence of USA in the region.

Middle east hates USA (for obvious reasons)

China and India want to become new promised lands.
(read : economical domination)

Russia not only that it succeed in recovery but it is for the first time has stabile economy. Which is then used to build next generation of military hardware .

EU in recent years started to invest large amount of money in high technology and advanced education hoping to have a last laugh.

Completely disagree. American friendly leaders have been elected in Canada, France, Germany and, I'm sure there's one more, in the last five years. So your statement is blatantly false.

South America is leftist, if they sided with America there would be bigger problems, all that means is US is on the right track.

Islamo-fascists hate America, surprise. Freedom loving would-be Middle-Eastern immigrants clamouring to enter Canada/US obviously do not hate us.

The rise of China and India although not particularly good for the affluent west is a testiment to the poverty fighting power of capitalism. Who thought self-interest would do more good than coerced charity (a conservative ;)).

The Russians are still holding on to Marxism even though they know it's a failure and that they must use capitalism.

The EU is a dying nation conglomerate. France has a civil service of %50. The ideas coming out of Britian are nothing short of ludicrous, urging people to check their babies for early signs of racism. They're mostly leftists and the society and economy is rotting.



So the only options for USA is to fall apart totally or become one of the players of this game whit balanced strengths.

The US needs another Ronald Regan. Another apt conservative. They need to resist liberal, irrational, relativistic policies touted by the left.



I am asking all of this because everybody are so excited about this and I dont see why.


I love politics so I'm always interested. Why? Becuase the freedoms and affluence we now enjoy has only been enjoyed for 100-200 years out of the 12000 years of human recorde history. What we have now is fleeting and can be taken away in a moments notice. The parallel with regard to Rome is a good one. Everyone was complacent and thought Rome would last forever, and it fell due to internal folly. I don't want to have to fight in a war, watch my children get carried off to a gulag or get hauled before a Human Right Tribunal for saying "I disagree with homosexuality:.

[Sara27]

The presidential elections in the US are exciting because we've only seen white males on the 2 major tickets for Pres. For a country that bosts of racial and gender equality, you sure can't see it in our high level governmenal officials, yet.

I think the white guy will win this election. I won't bother typing his name because I don't think it matters, any white guy will do. The US public isn't ready for a minority or female to be Pres. I'm thrilled about the coverage and hype surrounding Obama and Clinton because the more people see non-white males as potential Pres. the more likely we are to elect a Black/Woman/etc. Pres. We're getting closer. I hope to see a minority and woman in the White House in my lifetime. A minority woman would be even better! Then I'll feel proud of our countries progress.

As for the state of the US. So what if we won't be the #1 superpower? I don't care. I want a decent life for me and those I love. I don't want to inflict harm, nor do I want my country to inflict harm (I'm not getting my way). There are so many great countries who are good to their people and aren't in the #1 position. Do you think the average person cares?

[Ejay]

What's funny is most of the news does not talk to the average american. I would also like to thank you for your anti american slant. Must we forget that we decided to help europe git rid of a certain ass hole. I always love people who hate on america. Then when the shit hit's the fan it's all our fault. Iraq can kiss my ass. If they want freedom they should step up. I personally hope America pulls all of it's aid from foreign nations. Pulls all of our troops from the world. Becomes a nation that takes care of it's citizens. Builds it's military just like China and Korea and the others who are building more weapons.Pulls out of the united nations. Closes all the borders. And let's the rest of you suffer with your power hungry neighbors. I don't wish war or harm on any one but I feel we are over due on taking care of our own citizens. I am tired of helping every one else get freedom when our own government take ours away. Your right that we are in trouble. Just don't forget about the silent majority who is patiently waiting for a sign...

[PHS Philip]

What's funny is most of the news does not talk to the average american. I would also like to thank you for your anti american slant. Must we forget that we decided to help europe git rid of a certain ass hole. I always love people who hate on america. Then when the shit hit's the fan it's all our fault.

Iraq can kiss my ass. If they want freedom they should step up. I personally hope America pulls all of it's aid from foreign nations. Pulls all of our troops from the world. Becomes a nation that takes care of it's citizens. Builds it's military just like China and Korea and the others who are building more weapons.

Pulls out of the united nations. Closes all the borders. And let's the rest of you suffer with your power hungry neighbors. I don't wish war or harm on any one but I feel we are over due on taking care of our own citizens. I am tired of helping every one else get freedom when our own government take ours away. Your right that we are in trouble. Just don't forget about the silent majority who is patiently waiting for a sign...

Same old tired crap here. America sped up Hitler's fall, but after the Battle of Britain he was going to fall either way. America also, among other things, props up dictators and kings, sets up new ones, instigates rebellion against democratically elected leaders...We don't usually help the rest of the world, we clean up the messes we make. And sometimes we don't even manage that. Iran, for instance. America's got quite a nasty history, if you look at our treatment of the Middle East and Central America. We've done some good stuff, we've done some bad stuff.