|
I hate to say it, but I have become burned out on the presidential election. As a political junkie, that is a hard thing for me to admit. The problem is that I feel that we are on a ferris wheel and we just keep seeing the same things come around again and again. No one is telling me what they are actually going to do, they just keep telling me why I should not vote for the other guy. I am the type of person who wants to vote for something, not against someone. I am also getting really tired of the snark and sniping that is coming from both sides, and it ends up dragging everyone else into the mud along with them. They seem more interested in participating in gottcha politics than discussing issues, and never in my 36 years have I seen an election that should have more time spent discussing issues than this one. Am I alone, or does anyone else feel this way?
I hate to say it, but I have become burned out on the presidential election. As a political junkie, that is a hard thing for me to admit. The problem is that I feel that we are on a ferris wheel and we just keep seeing the same things come around again and again. No one is telling me what they are actually going to do, they just keep telling me why I should not vote for the other guy. I am the type of person who wants to vote for something, not against someone. I am also getting really tired of the snark and sniping that is coming from both sides, and it ends up dragging everyone else into the mud along with them. They seem more interested in participating in gottcha politics than discussing issues, and never in my 36 years have I seen an election that should have more time spent discussing issues than this one. Am I alone, or does anyone else feel this way?
Hell yes.
I place a lot of the blame at the feet of the media. It's gotten so large that it has to be in your face every moment of every day, even if they don't have anything to add to the 'story'. In their struggle to be 1st they started the hype on the election earlier than ever. In their struggle to stand out among the media masses they create sensationalism. Ethics go out the window.
It's kinda like seeing Christmas decorations in the stores before Halloween. It used to wait until the day after Thanksgiving. Arrghh!
On a related thought I was going to start another thread about disenfranchisement. With a twist. Basically the impact the media has on voters. Voters shouldn't vote independent because it's a 'wasted' vote or nobody really knows about them because the media ignores them, Repubs shouldn't vote because their guy has already 'lost', or Dems shouldn't because they're guy has already 'won'.
Apathy and burnout are the results. I think this form of 'unintended' disenfranchisement affects a lot more people that would usually vote.
And the candidates. Come on. Give me something to vote for. Soundbites, cliches, and empty promises aren't enough. They spend so much time reacting to 'polls' or trying to walk the tightrope they all start looking the same. They just drone on and on.
We need a Walking Tall candidate! Bufford Pusser for President!
|
|
I agree with you that the media has played a role, but I personally am more inclined to say that it is because this is the longest political season in modern presidential politics. The two guys we have right now have been running for almost two years now, and yes it has been a media circus the whole time. Usually, the hard core campaigning doesn't start until after Labor Day, but this year it seems like it started around New Years Day. I think we need some serious election reform, and it should start by saying that you can't start campaigning until 60 days before the first primary.
It certainly is worth blaming the media for a lot of it. But it really is about a particular kind of media and not all of the media in general. If all we had were newspapers, the American public would have to engage its brains more often and we wouldn't have campaigns based on the carefully crafted multi-media soundbyte.
Yes, a major problem is the great glass teat and how campaign strategists use it. Of course, it doesn't have to be the way it is. But the current state of affairs is the result of many years of campaigns, analyses of what works, and putting those analyses to work. And the stiff competition doesn't allow a lot of room for experimentation with new and radical changes in presentation methods. For all his faults, I did have to hand it to Ross Perot for sitting down with a longer presentation and actually talking about issues, with charts and all that, for his 1992 run. I'd love to see more of that but I'm not expecting it.
The way I see things, nothing's going to get better without some kind of mandate from the government to change how campaigning is done. I know a lot of people immediately become wary of that sort of thing, but rather than do it by restricting speech or expression, I'd rather do it by adding certain requirements to the programming of the expressions. I wonder what changes we'd see if all political and issue ads had to be a longer minimum length. Would we see fewer emotion-mongering soundbytes? Would we see more elaboration of ideas and programs?
And I wonder what we'd see if every partisan political ad, and every issue ad within a certain time radius of the election, came with the requirement that the group not only had to pay for their own ad but had to pay for additional time slots for other groups to use for free. Sort of an equal time clause.
I'd be really interested to see if doing so cut down on the number of ads designed to bombard the viewer with soundbytes, maybe give exposure to more diverse points of view.
Ultimately, there has to be a better way to run elections in the US. They run on too long from the run-up to primaries to election day. They're too expensive. They generate too much cynicism.
Ran into this piece, VP Debate Fact Check
I know, it's from that evil right wing group at Foxnews but it illustrates the media battle voters are thrown in between. It also raises questions about the sources people use to check facts. Sounds like some of the fact check places are trying to 'Dan Quayle' Palin and ignore the gaffs on the other side.
How is Joe Six-Pack supposed to tell fact from fiction? Who has that time?
Election reform in the US is a must. How do we start over?
I agree with you that the media has played a role, but I personally am more inclined to say that it is because this is the longest political season in modern presidential politics. The two guys we have right now have been running for almost two years now, and yes it has been a media circus the whole time. Usually, the hard core campaigning doesn't start until after Labor Day, but this year it seems like it started around New Years Day. I think we need some serious election reform, and it should start by saying that you can't start campaigning until 60 days before the first primary.
Not far enough. The primaries have to be rolled in and executed in a much shorter time frame and scheduled better. States keep trying to leapfrog over each other so they'll be the ones to have the most choices and that keeps pushing out the earliest dates.
I think a regional primary system would work. It would allow some concentration of media and travel. New England one week, mid Atlantic the next, Atlantic south, Gulf South, Upper midwest, etc. And each presidential cycle, lots are drawn to determine which region goes first.
Alternatively, the Republican party, via some internal think tank, came up with a plan that is less geographically concentrated but perhaps even more compeling based on delegate numbers. They would start with grouped primaries, but done by state size, lowest population first. By the time the largest states were included in the last grouped primary, just under half the delegates would have been divided up, leaving quite a haul for that last week.
Ideally, in both plans, by having a shortened primary campaign season, candidates would need smaller war chests and more candidates would be able to compete longer, giving the voters more choices. The Democrats gave us the best run this time because they apportioned the delegates proportionally, but the process was still too long and expensive because too many states were allowed to move too early in the year.
|
Heh. I know exactly what you mean David. I was just sharing those exact same sentiments the other day with a buddy of mine about the elections in Canada. It's voting day today and I only know two things:
1) I don't want the Conservatives to have a majority Government. (I don't even really have a reason for this. just gut intuition.)
2) Bloc Quebecois is the only party that's told me their motives and what they plan to do.
All the other parties are so busy telling me why not to vote for the other guys that I can't figure out why they'd want me to vote for them. All I want is a statement, in list form, or what they plan to do if elected and how they plan to do it. that's all. I don't think it's too much to ask for. I got tired of the sniping weeks ago, and the only reason I even know it's election day is it was on the radio this morning right before the weather.
|
|
I agree with you that the media has played a role, but I personally am more inclined to say that it is because this is the longest political season in modern presidential politics. The two guys we have right now have been running for almost two years now, and yes it has been a media circus the whole time. Usually, the hard core campaigning doesn't start until after Labor Day, but this year it seems like it started around New Years Day. I think we need some serious election reform, and it should start by saying that you can't start campaigning until 60 days before the first primary.Not far enough. The primaries have to be rolled in and executed in a much shorter time frame and scheduled better. States keep trying to leapfrog over each other so they'll be the ones to have the most choices and that keeps pushing out the earliest dates.
I think a regional primary system would work. It would allow some concentration of media and travel. New England one week, mid Atlantic the next, Atlantic south, Gulf South, Upper midwest, etc. And each presidential cycle, lots are drawn to determine which region goes first.
Actually I think the best system would be to have a Primary Day, similar to Election Day. All of the states would go to the polls on the same day in early August to select a nominee. Then we would have the Election in November. I would also like to see both days also be made a national holiday so nobody would have anything other than apathy as an excuse for not voting.
Maybe we need a 'None of the Above' box to check when voting?
I know, it's silly, but it might get them to pay attention.
|
|
I hate to say it, but I have become burned out on the presidential election. [SNIP] Am I alone, or does anyone else feel this way?
Big time. I play EverQuest2, but can't get on Ventrilo with my friends right now because all they freaking do is talk about how evil and retarded and fascist anyone who thinks like I do must be, and then I get to go to work and hear the same thing from a pair of co-workers who are grossly racist. We've already had one HR incident because of racism, stirred up when someone made a joke about Sarah Palin and got yelled at by someone that had to be warned by three different officers to calm down and back off, this month, and I doubt it's the last one.
The sooner this election is over, the better. The whackaloons on *both* sides can go back to their caves and tinfoil helmets and black helicopters and militia encampments and let the rest of us go back to our lives.
|
|
Big time. I play EverQuest2, but can't get on Ventrilo with my friends right now because all they freaking do is talk about how evil and retarded and fascist anyone who thinks like I do must be, and then I get to go to work and hear the same thing from a pair of co-workers who are grossly racist. We've already had one HR incident because of racism, stirred up when someone made a joke about Sarah Palin and got yelled at by someone that had to be warned by three different officers to calm down and back off, this month, and I doubt it's the last one.
I have the same problem, and I have to teach government and politics. It makes it very difficult to avoid talking about it, which just feeds my apathy even more. Just out of curiousity, where do you work at?
|
|
I have the same problem, and I have to teach government and politics. It makes it very difficult to avoid talking about it, which just feeds my apathy even more. Just out of curiousity, where do you work at?
A random software company that probably wouldn't want me discussing HR problems online, so enough stuff that could get me fired for today. :)
|
I hate to say it, but I have become burned out on the presidential election. Am I alone, or does anyone else feel this way?
I don't even live in the US any more, and I'm burned out on it. Between the election and the economic crisis, there's nothing else on the news these days (at least the English-language international news I get - I don't understand the Czech news).
I am the type of person who wants to vote for something, not against someone.
Apathy and burnout are the results. I think this form of 'unintended' disenfranchisement affects a lot more people that would usually vote.
I agree wholeheartedly, and it's why I haven't voted since 1996, the last time Perot won. I don't vote Democrat or Republican, and a third party doesn't have a chance.
Election reform in the US is a must. How do we start over?
Simple. It's spelled out in the Constitution. Hold a Constitutional Convention and rewrite the dame thing. Fix the government, fix the electoral system, fix a lot of things.
AFAIK, the US is the only country in the world (or at least, one of a very few), that still bases everything on an out-of-date 200+ year-old document that has little, if any, relevance to the present day. It's virtually unheard of for a country not to change their constitution as time goes on. And the Founding Fathers even provided instructions on how to do it! Sadly, however, we view the Constitution as some sacred "Bible" that can't ever be changed, and so we sink deeper and deeper into irrelevance.
But that's just my rant/opinion - YMMV. :)
|
I couldn't agree more. My advice is to throw away your television (assuming you watch tv). You can control the amount of exposure you get by reading news online. When you watch tv, those damned commercials keep coming on to remind you why one side or the other is evil, and they're very difficult to filter out. It's so bad that I'm getting to where I can't even enjoy football (and that's pretty bad). I decided at least 4 months ago who I was voting for. Can't I just vote now and get completely excluded from the rest of the conversation?
Please?
|
|
I have the same problem, and I have to teach government and politics. It makes it very difficult to avoid talking about it, which just feeds my apathy even more. Just out of curiousity, where do you work at?A random software company that probably wouldn't want me discussing HR problems online, so enough stuff that could get me fired for today. :)
Good plan. ;p
Except, what happens when None of the Above wins?
I'll have my name legally changed to None of the Above before that happens. Then I'll win most elections all across the nation, and rule the country. Life will be good.
I'll have Common Sense as my VP. Chuck Norris as Secretary of Defense. I'll control the majority of both the Senate and the House, so no more logjams.
On the local level I'll also be a governor, county commissioner, and mayor. All at the same time. State issues will be rolled into national ones.
Balance wil be restored to the universe.
Viva la Revolution!
|
|
No one is telling me what they are actually going to do, they just keep telling me why I should not vote for the other guy. I am the type of person who wants to vote for something, not against someone.
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens! But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system - you have to vote for one of us!
[Crowd murmurs in confusion]Man 1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man 2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead! Throw your vote away!
I am going to keep a running tally of negative ads. Whoever has the most loses my vote.
|
|
I am going to keep a running tally of negative ads. Whoever has the most loses my vote.
I change the channel when any political ad comes on, so I never know if it's negative or not. Out here in Utah it's really bad. The incumbent Democrat congressman is going to beat his Republican opponent like a rented mule (pardon the pun) and yet he is still running ads telling us how wonderful he is on every channel at least once an hour. The other guy doesn't even have television ads. What is the point of running ads when the only way you could lose the election is to get hit by a train the day before the vote happens?
I am going to keep a running tally of negative ads. Whoever has the most loses my vote.I change the channel when any political ad comes on, so I never know if it's negative or not. Out here in Utah it's really bad. The incumbent Democrat congressman is going to beat his Republican opponent like a rented mule (pardon the pun) and yet he is still running ads telling us how wonderful he is on every channel at least once an hour. The other guy doesn't even have television ads. What is the point of running ads when the only way you could lose the election is to get hit by a train the day before the vote happens?
To keep your brother-in-law in business?
We have that in MI. McCain dropped his radio ad business by a lot yet my favorite station is still running anti-McCain ads like a house of fire. Tying him into the Stem Cell vote and everything under the sun. Talk about a broken record. And the ads are so juvenile! But I guess the qty is cut in half so that parts 'good'.
I'm listening to XM radio a lot more 'til the election is over.
Not me. I love this s&#%e.
<SARCASM> Shocking! </SARCASM>
mnaaaaar!