This week we were going to do a reading on Gay Marriage but that issue is evolving quickly right now so we will wait until we get to Civil Liberties unit.
We are going to instead look at the evolution and hopes of the Tea Party. Please first look at ALL of these sources:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/vp/38805749#38805828
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/us/politics/23rubio.html?_r=1&hp
http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/senate/florida?ref=politics
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/08/22/sunshine-state-political-shift-establishment-candidates-favored-win-0
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/22/AR2010082201288.html
An important key to politics and political parties is to remember that all politics are LOCAL. But we have "National" political parties:Republican and Democratic parties. a rising sect of the Republican party, the "Tea Party" started by Libertarians who wanted smaller government budgets and a smaller overall government involvement- fiscal conservatives.
Social conservatives quickly joined in and now the beliefs of the "Tea Party" are almost as diverse ans that of the straight of D and Rs.
In every midterm election the party in power loses seats. This is a 100% fact. How many seats is up to campaigning and relative party successes or failures.
QUESTION OF THE WEEK: How are voters supposed to identify with candidates and make informed decisions? Can they rely on party label? Does party label mean anything? What is the solution to being a smart voter? And what about candidates? How do they pick a party if issues are so diverse from state to state......all politics is local....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A smart voter is an informed voter. After watching the msnbc video, there were a few different tea party candidates shown with very different platforms. Some incredibly radical. You simply cannot trust a party label. It's not logical or practical. Just within these few people the platforms were radically different. You need to know who your voting for. In Florida, Crist and Rubio seem to have a very interesting race going for the republican nomination for the seat. You cant just say "hey im a republican they must believe the same thing". Ignorant. It doesnt work that way. Republican can mean so many different things. In the washington post article it was saying how repuiblicans turned into a group simply against anything Obama proposes. That is ridiculous. Mccain saw through that and any smart voter will too. Even though im not too well read on the platform of Rubio, he seems like a honest politcian. He isnt there to tell you how flawed the other side is, he is there to tell you what he thinks. A smart voter should look for that, integrity. To an extent party label is important, but truly that is for uninformed voters. A candidate can pick up votes just for simply being of a certain party. But it shouldnt be that way. As i was reading about Mccain, it seemed to be telling me that he was "evolving" his platform to meet the changing republican party. While that is a very strategic move for him, what does it mean to the voters? Hes telling you what you want to hear. Maybe he believes it, maybe he is feeding bologna, who am i to say, but it sure seems like just the right words.
ReplyDeleteFor candidates, its a bit of a different story. Its a hard knock life for independents. Especially when people are affiliating themselves with parties and sticking to that. The best option i would say is to pick the party that best represents you, then branch from there. Pick up the uninformed votes, then go on to pick up the rest. Rubio in the Florida elections seems to be doing this. He is a Republican, but will tell you what he thinks about each subject instead of what the party wants to hear. But for candidates picking a party is necessary even though politics are local.
Politicians try their best to identify with the voting populous to potentially get elected. However, with the emergence of the tea-party it's been harder for republicans to identify with their fellow party members, where as its been easier for democrats to identify with THEIR fellow party members.
ReplyDeleteTo republicans their party label seems to have lost its central meaning. With the emergence of the tea-party they've been split into two (not unlike theodore roosevelt and the bull moose party). Therefore to be a more educated voter is to simply educate yourself in regards to politician's stances on certain topics. Since republicans can no longer choose simply based on their party label voters need to actually research their candidates and make their decisions based on their own research.
In regards to the candidates:
it has become more difficult for republicans to define which kind of republican they are where it's become increasingly easier for democrats to relate to their voters. (generally by disagreeing to whatever the republicans are in favor for)
With political ideologies meaning everything and party labels meaning nothing, the only way for the voter to get legitimate information is to find out for themselves the information about each candidate. There’s a multitude of news sources- television (CNN, Fox News, MSNBC), the paper (NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post)…as long as voters as receiving all the facts about each candidate.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, political labels are nothing more than names. After all, both parties’ ideologies change all the time (the ideologies themselves stay the same); for example, those labeled “Republicans” back during the Civil War held a more liberal view, and therefore more likely to be “Democrats” today. Going with this week’s topic, members of the Tea Part used to be libertarians, but are now radical conservatives; politicians like Sarah Palin endorse this party.
Candidates pick their party according to what label matches their ideology in their state at that specific time. However, because only ideologies stick and party labels don’t, this is subject to change. Governor Charlie Crist of Florida used to be a “Republican”, but is now an “Independent”(NY Times). It isn’t very likely that as a politician he switched his political view so much as to change from one party to another; it was the “Republican” standards that changed, forcing him to keep up.
Political labels are deceptive. For example, Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, who is a “Republican”, supports some issues favored by “Democrats”. John McCain doesn’t support Bush’s tax cuts, yet they are both “Republican” (Washington Post). Do you see a trend here? Because, frankly, there isn’t really any.
Party names can’t be trusted. We should vote on ideologies, not just party labels.
Party labels shouldn't be what voters base their votes on anymore. In fact, i don't necessarily see the point in why we have party labels. A politician should be chosen because of his ideologies and because of what he has to offer rather than whether he is a Republican or a Democrat. The best way for you to identify with your candidates is to stay informed with the policies that your candidate is proposing. Like mitch said..."A smart voter is an informed voter." This is extremely important. Staying informed is your best way to be smart voter. One of the best ways to identify yourself with your candidates is to choose your ideologies and see which candidate has the same ideologies that you have. Nothing could be more worse than voting for someone just because they have the same party label as you because than you could be voting for someone just because they have the same label as you but you could be completely against some of their points but you refused to listen to that. Politicians should pick a party based on their ideologies (just like voters). A great example of this is Govenor Crist and how he switched his party label from being a Republican to being an Independent.
ReplyDeleteParty labels aren't necessarily important, you need to focus on ideas rather than labels and you will be a very smart voter.
With all the information given I can only agree with Mitchell. The only way a voter will really ever know who to vote for will be to actually look into each canidates information, and LEARN. Other-wise most just follow the political socialization that occurs in America. They will just know that their parents for R or D and just vote for whatever canidate says they are R or D or even jsut vote for who their parents vote for. As a smart voter the party lable means nothing beause of the diversity in everything nowdays. If the voter jsut votes for a canidate because of their party's lable than they could be voting for someone who is going completely against what the vote personaly wants but he would never know since he only votes for the party's lable. In the end it is the voter's issue to either look into the canidates he thinks he wants to vote for and be an educated voter or just follow the crowd and just vote for a party's lable and believe that the lable is a liable reason to vote.
ReplyDeleteMaking informed decisions is best done by being...informed! Simply picking a side and agreeing with its points of view based on the norm is asinine. Political view is a person to person thing. Some folks agree with some democratic ideas and some republic. It's really just about doing your homework and making an intelligent decision because one of the most powerful tools we have is the right to vote and, unfortunately, so do people who blindly follow a party because they agree with it 90% of the time.
ReplyDeleteChoosing a party should be based off of one's own beliefs. Voters have it easy because they don't have to follow their party every single time they vote. A candidate has to choose his own.
I think one way voters can identify with the cadidates and make informed decisions is by knowing excatly what their goals and solutions are. Every cadidate's views on how the U.S. should fix the economy are diiferent. For instance Dick Armey and Governor Granholm were arguing whether the government should make medicare and social security voluntary to Americans. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/vp/38805749#38805828
ReplyDeletePeople cant rely on party labling as much as they used to. Especially with the Tea Party movement, just becuase the are republicans doesnt mean they all have the same views. Generally, party labling does matter when voting for a candidate. However, Tea Party Republicans have different attitudes than normal Republicans. Dick Armey said it himself that "too many Republicans are scared to face the politics in the federal government. If they cant step up they will be replaced." The most important thing a voter must do inorder to make a smart vote is to know and study all the candidates plans for fixing america. Whether it be to privatize medicare and social security by Sharron Angle or to repeal the progressive income tax by Mike Lee, everyon should be informed about the candidates goals as Senator. Doing this is the only way a voter can guarantee a smart vote.
I'll start off with: people should be informed to be a good voter blah blah blah. The most effective way to vote is for one to know their own political beliefs (which I think is definitely an issue) and educate themselves on the beliefs of local and federal politicians. You must chose a party and it is logical to chose a party that is closest to your own beliefs but parties are too ambiguous to be relied on as absolute guides to voting. Politicians must chose parties based on what the CURRENT views of that party are and how voters see that party in comparison to the politician's personal beliefs. Blah blah blah (insert crap that everyone else has already said) blah blah blah.
ReplyDeleteFor a voter to identify with a politician they are going to have to reflect upon how the candidate makes decisions. Are they consistent with what they believe? Do they make irrational decisions? Do they always vote the way that you expect them to? To do this a voter would have to know what they believed about major issues and find the politician who would support these ideas without voting the other way. For example when Scott Brown ran for Ted Kennedy’s seat the people were very hopeful that he would not support any of Obama’s ideas but he voted for the financial reform bill which irked most republicans.(http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/politics/local_politics/scott-brown-taking-heat-for-vote-on-financial-reform-bill-20100715) One also has to consider how honest their politician is. In reality politicians are going to say what they need to to earn their votes. So which one is most likely to do what they say they will?
ReplyDeleteMeg Whitman, a republican, running for governor in California, has made a flip flop on her immigration opinion since she started the race. At first she had said that she was against it but soon released ads in spanish declaring her opposition to Arizona’s SB1070 and Prop187. (http://www.laprogressive.com/immigration-reform/meg-whitman-opportunist/)( I couldn’t find a better article)
Meg Whitman proves that one cannot rely on a party label for voting. The parties are so encompassing and diverse that it would be difficult to figure out how belief’s differ from politician to politician within one party.
A smart voter would not even begin with the party label. It is best to look at politician consistency and how they vote towards issues you care about. Vote for the person who you believe has the best solution for the problem.
For a candidate to choose a party it is best for them to first know if they are conservative or liberal. Depending on this they can then look at the Major core beliefs of each party associated with their ideology. Once this is complete they can then choose the one that fits them best or run as independent if they are in the middle.
The best way for voters to identify with politicians is to actually know the views of the top politicians. In order for this to be the case you must stay informed and up to date. You cannot make informed decisions unless you know what each candidate brings to the tabel. Another thing voters do is just identify with a political party, and that is the end of any debate in their mind. When you do this you shut yourself off from the facts. In some instances the other party may have presented another candidate. If you are a republican in the state of Colorado, you will see Ken Buck running for senate in your party. He wants to eliminate the state's energy and education departments. I'm sure many Republicans do not agree with this, and in order to realize this they need to stay informed! You cannot just align with a party and always vote for that candidate unless they are the best candidate.
ReplyDeleteCandidates must align themselves with whatever party fits their beliefs, but this is a little more difficult. Many candidates do not fit perfectly with either party, they just must see which is closest to what they believe. Politics are also always changing, so politicians need to stay current in their party
As Mitch said, a smart voter is an informed voter. People cannot rely on politics when deciding on whom to vote for they need to think about their own beliefs first. Once they have decided what they believe they should watch and look at all the candidates, see what they ALL have to say and then make their decision. The party label cannot be used for a lot of people, because even if someone's family is mainly republican or democratic they themselves could be the opposite, or an independent. The party label cannot be used really, because the party system throughout history has reversed, and as of now is due for realignment. As for candidates, they must also look at their own beliefs and look at what they want government to do, and then they should try to fall into a "party label" even though I just said it is of no use. However, when running as a democrat or republican, over running as an independent, gains a better political standing, and more people vote for either of the two main political parties. However, what is politics but a race to gain the highest ground with the greatest number of votes, to fulfill self-given goals. Even if issues are diverse and differ from city to city, a candidate must be one of the main two followings, which hold more status than other party labels. People look at the party and then at what they have to say, and not the other way around, which is what people should do.
ReplyDeleteVoters usually identify with candidates because they are form the same political party. Do they ever really look at what the candidate is attempting to do? Maybe, maybe not. The public needs to do research on the candidates and take a position on the topics being discussed. They can't rely on the party label because the public is not going to agree with every single thing that, that party is proposing. To avoid being in the dark, voters need to be up to date with their candidates.
ReplyDeleteCandidates pick their respective parties and with the issues that they might not agree with, they probably just twist them a little bit to make them party appropriate. Don't be too shocked lol. They make the current issue or issues seem like they belong and then they push it and hope that everyone agrees and goes along with it.
A voter normally has a political affiliation to a party if they agree with most of the views. The political parties, even theirs do not always have the same views. In order for people to make educated decisions on their candidates, the people need to be aware of all for the key points that the candidate makes. As Mason said, some people just vote for people due to the political pressure put on them. Party labels today, have become rather pointless. If a candidate is of one label, it does not mean that the voters should vote for them. If the beliefs of the voter are different from the candidate's, but they choose merely on labels, something can go wrong and inevitably will. It is better to educate oneself on the candidates, before allowing them to run our country or whatever it may be.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe only way for a voter to make a smart and informed decision is for him to seriously invest time into research. Party labels are overgeneralized statements that carry too many exceptions. The formation of the Tea Party is a great example of this fact. The Republican party has seen divisions within its own party placing voters in a dilemma. Crist himself couldn't handle the unreliability of political parties and decided to opt for the independent road. Really this is, figuritively the only road anyone should consider. The extinguishing of political parties is just not a plausable proposal, however voters should only use party labels as a guideline, because that is what they are. Labels identify what general end of the political spectrum a party lies. The only reason a voter should choose a political party is to be able to vote in primaries so that they can elect a candidate whose policies are agreeable. Other than that, voters shouldn't limit themselves to voting for their own party in every election. If one happens to like one particular candidate from the opposing party then he should feel free to vote for that candidate. Of course this is only the method suggested to those willing to put the work in, because politicians really make it hard these days to find out what they are really all about. Chances are, either way you're going to most likely end up with someone who will abuse his power somehow or stray from his original intentions. That is why most people tend to just vote for their political party: lack of care and effort.
ReplyDeleteHonestly I can think of no better solution for candidates other than just going with the most popular party. Crist demonstrated perfectly that you can't always trust your party to back you up. Politics has always been a sneaky game to begin with, so I don't see any better way to secure a vote other than by being sly. Go with your state's popular party (ex. don't even try to run as a Democrat in Arizona unless you want to just wast millions on campaigning), please the party members that will nominate you, then present your true position to the public (if it is a popular position). It's all about working the system. If the popular party of your state has a completely different ideology than you then here's a thought- maybe you're living in the wrong state.
Oh and I just had an off topic side note. Did anyone else catch that lady Sharron Angle on the first link? Did I read that right, the part that said she wants the U.S. to pull out of the U.N.? Stupid &$#@*! Is she crazy?! Now I'm no political genius but I'm pretty sure we all learned sophmore year why U.S. absence in a worldwide political body is bad. Maybe she should go back and read her text books, you know the part where the League of Nations failed partly because of our absence. Informed candidate FAIL.
While in the past the party label was more direct and accurate in associating oneself with ideologies, today with constantly changing issues the lines of each party are becoming more and more blurred as sects like the Tea Party arise. Labels aren't reliable because within parties candidates have so many varying views on separate issues that contradict the previously established ideologies of that party. The best way for voters to identify with candidates is to evaluate their values, beliefs, and goals and choose who they most relate to in commonalities.
ReplyDeleteParty labels don't mean much anymore, because as demonstrated with Crist switching from Republican to Independent, it's more important to foucs on candidates' ideologies rather than what name they go by. The solution to be a smart voter is to educate oneself on candidate's history, plans for course of action and solutions for the future. Fully understand what position they hold on all topics. Determine, what is their position on public policies?
For candidates, choosing a party is about determining which party associates with their ideologies the most at the time. The constantly evolving parties makes that a challenging task which was also deomstrated by Crist's switch from Republican to independent.
Voters must research the bill or person being voted on. Once ALL outcomes and effects are understood, it is only then that a person should vote. Watching the news for discussion of political views such as MSNBC can help to identify some extremes and steer way clear.
ReplyDeleteParty label shouldnt mean too much.OP even tells us that its good to listen to the opposite party once in a while. If a person relies completely on what party a politician belongs to, an uneducated, biased vote will be cast and then an unqualified person is in charge of a city, or state, or a state's money. my guess is that people dont understand most of the things they vote for. however, if political party does not influence a person completely, it is important to consider the beliefs of a person that shares your political party.
Although party labels do matter in a sense, they have become merly crutches for people to place a vote. In reality, citizens should be placing their votes with candidates who most closely resemble their political ideology, rather than Republican, Democrat, or Independent parties. The only real way for a citizen to make the best informed decision is by following politics on several different sources to try and eliminate as much bias as possible. When people align themselves with a party, but do not stay up to date and informed, they are taking the easy way out and most likely falling for political strategy.
ReplyDeleteThe general notion is that citizens will almost always vote local. I mean why wouldnt you want to vote for or against whats going to directly effect your way of living or surroundings? When considering candidates, a voter needs to do everything in their power to ensure that they're choosing a political leader with integrity, strength, and poltical goals as well as the closest ideology possible. More than often, candidates will not perfectly match a voters ideology as well as goals, and this is where the idea that one must be as informed as possible comes to play. By educating yourself on all possible decisions, one can at least choose a candidate with the most similar beliefs to represent them in whichever political positon is at stake.
The equation is simple. If a candidate is willing to input more into his campaign, compared to his opponent, his outputs will most likely be more favorable, compared to his opponent's. In The Washington Post and Fox News articles, it clearly shows that the wealthier candidate has the upper hand in the elections. This is because they are able to invest more money into their campaigns: especially towards commercials (where they are able to promote themselves and bash their opponents). For an example, “McCain outspent Hayworth, [by] pouring more than $20 million into the campaign to his opponent's estimated $3 million”. So, it shouldn't be a surprise to see that McCain had “a double-digit lead in the polls over his challenger”.
ReplyDeleteYet even so, this should not be the only thing that voters need to be aware of. They also need find out the positions that each candidate stands for. Like most of you said, it is extremely important that people become informed of the candidates before they vote. However, not only should they research these potential primaries, they should also compare each candidate with one another, because they each offer different solutions to the economic and political issues of today (employment and immigration). The radical ideas of both sides (government action vs. non-government action) must be evaluated carefully, and they (the voters) must choose the candidate that is most likely to enforce the solutions most beneficial to them. As Mitch said, they can not possibly assume that the candidates agree with themselves or that their stands represent what they (the voter) want, just because they are from the same political party. Voters need to understand that “politicians say insincere thing”, which is dangerous because, some of the runners promise things to guarantee their re-nomination (as McCain), but never carry them through.
These solutions especially are needed to be enforced right now because the Republican and Democratic Parties are not firm/clear on their platforms. So, these two parties are divided into sub-parties such as the "Tea Party" and the "Coffee Party", and many others. These deviations off of the two parties create one too many specific options, as a result there really is no need or significance in them. It causes a lack of clear definition of the term Republican or Democratic, and so the issues at hand become blurred. As a result, voters need to vote independently, without enlisting themselves into specific parties. This is the only solution in which the voters can ultimately vote freely without the lump grouping of political parties.
Voters have a difficult job; they can no longer follow party lables. This is becuase our ideas and views are changing so frequently that most people, let alone parties, don't know what to believe. The best way to become an informed voter is to look at all planks in the party platform and choose a party that better suits you. Voters should also watch news channels which are as un-biased as possible to be informed on current political events to vote with more confidence. But be careful, all politicians will tell you what you want to hear.
ReplyDeleteAs for candidates, they have a tough decision. It's difficult for politicians to identify with one party because of the vast opinions and topics of discussion. They really can choose whatever pary they want, because in the end, they are going to tell the voters what they want to hear. They know that people will vote based on how the politician kisses thier butts. Labels have little meaning anymore.
The best way for a voter to make the decision that his best for him and best for America is not easy, its a process. Its far more than just choosing a platform and sticking to whatever candidate is representing that platform. We all know that platforms are far too broad and diverse to appeal to every member. Just like the story of John McCain, he is a republican but according to the story he is "not republican enough." Luckily for him he recognized the public's view and addressed it quickly to answer the majority's questions. A voter must first make one of two very broad decisions, choosing whether he is a democrat or republican (and even then he is not committed to one or the other). Then a voter must research. He must dig into the branches of each party. For example, find out exactly what the Tea Party Movement is all about, and what they believe. Find out what the current issues facing the government today are, and then find what each candidates view on these subjects are. According to all that a voter has read and seen, he can then make a decision on who is the best to represent his interests.
ReplyDeleteSo what then is most important when going into an election? Even more important than knowing what the candidates believe and stand for, is knowing what YOU believe. How can a person make an educated vote if they don't even know what they want? Consider a proposition to ban smoking. A voter could go back and forth all they want seeing what the pros and cons of the proposition passing or failing are, but if they don't understand what they want out of the proposition (i.e. they don't like smoking in public buildings, so they vote in favor of banning smoking in public buildings) they will not get anywhere. The same applies to elections. If you don't know what you stand for, you will only get lost in all the tricky terminology and sugar coated lies that politicians throw your way.
As for candidates, I believe that if they all could stand independent they would, but unfortunately such a high majority of voters simply base their opinion on who is on their party's ticket so they cannot. Therefore candidates need to find a party and even beyond that find a subgroup that most closely fits them and has a large following. From there they do their best to appeal to the problems facing the people to pick up as many votes as they can.
Voters usually don't follow everything the candidates offer. As Carlos said, voters should normally vote for the candidate that they agreed the most. Though many people people will vote on what their parents vote or fall into peer pressure. Labels does not help anyone because it does not show their real belief. People should not believe the label cause their beliefs might be different from the voters. Smart voters will know what they are voting for. An educated voter would not let just anybody run for a political leader position. Candidate should choose what party is best for his or her ideology. They should pick the party that resembled his or her idea the best. That way, the candidate will get more voter who agrees with him.
ReplyDeleteAs has been said, the best way to go about being informed is by finding out the facts, not skewed biases of them. I'm sure it's possible to just look up videos on youtube of, uh...The various politicians sharing their views, and that is obviously the least likely way to get crap data.
ReplyDeleteParty label means something I would say most of the time. Even though politics do indeed differ from region to region, the basis of their beliefs mostly stays the same. Members of the same political party aren't going to believe complete polar opposite things. If they do, why would they be categorized into a certain...Category? <_<
And honestly, I don't know how candidates pick a party of the difficulties range all across the US. I'm sure they have their core, basic beliefs, and just go off of that.
Voters should identify with candidates in theories and ideologies that they have in common. If you want more power to the government, you should go with the guy who wants more power to the government (makes sense, right?). You should not go with the guy who wants less power to the government because he is of a different political race than you are.However, it seems like the typical American does not use the same thought process as I do. My grandparents refuse to vote for anyone outside of their political party, and I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of other Americans just like this. I do not believe you can rely on party labels. Just because you are a democrat does not mean you support everything that democrats support and believe in. Because of said reasons, I do not believe a party label has any significance in a candidate. A candidate should be chosen reguardless of what his political party is, and instead chosen because of what he believes in. For candidates, I don't believe that it should matter what party they choose. Whatever party they decide to go with, the should still have ideologies from other political parties and have different view points than just from that political party. Overall, political parties should have no impact on voters, but yet, they still do.
ReplyDeleteThe best way to be an informed voter is to listen to the candidates when they are involved in important debates, or when they are interviewed, or whenever they are given the chance to speak in public. Taking notes is also a key way to stay up to date on the issues that they may discuss because sometimes they may say things that contradict each other. Keeping track of what they say can help voters to understand which topics are of relevance to themselves.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to candidates and their party label, again, it comes down to being that informed voter. That means reading their websites, listening to their talks, and listening to both the commentary and criticism that is thrown their way. In regards to the largest parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, both parties are going to have opinions about important topics that may overlap in some sense, because they are each trying to garner the largest amount of voters but they are still able to maintain their liberal or conservative stance. In my opinion, being on the left or right side of the political spectrum just gives voters something to label themselves as. It could just mean that they don't want to take the time to look into the different political parties. Voters rarely fall on the exact end of either side because both sides are so radical or conservative from the rest of the ideas that are floating around in the modern world. In an ever-changing world, so are the opinions of Americans.
Furthermore, to fully understand all sides of the political spectrum, the voter must analyze the different viewpoints of the candidates they are voting for and decide on which one fits the beliefs, values and ideas that make up the voter.
Since every state is going to have different opinions about significant topics, and important national debates, the best way to select a party is to choose based on how they would directly affect the voter. When it comes down to local issues, each party is going to have their own ideas, of course, but voters need be aware of how they will maybe change the local part of their world. Voters are going to decide based on decisions that affect themselves and their own "backyard". The more informed a voter is about the things going on, the better, because an informed voter will hopefully mean a government that enacts more meaningful laws.
when it comes to voting people need to decide what issues are most relevant to their lives and what will impact their future the most. no candidate is going to be appealing in all aspects to everyone and for this reason party labels don't always determine how a person votes but should definitely be taken into consideration. using the example of Mr. Cris he had a good campaign and was a strong candidate but his lack of party backing is going to hurt him in the end. As far as idealogies go people can't always solely rely on if the candidate is a republican or a democart but regardless they are heavily influenced by this factor. so to be smart voters need to look ahead and see if the person they want elected is going to better improve their life and if so, are his promises and ideas a reality? A person who wants less government doesn't necesarily have the same conservative mentality when it comes to social issues such as abortion and education. so to be succesful the most beneficial candidate is who people should vote for
ReplyDelete@ josh
ReplyDeleteYour use of "lol" truly reflects your level of intelligence.
@justin
I like how you mentioned the differing opinions of conservatives on social issues. I think one of the biggest divides in the Republican party today is the differences between social and fiscal conservatives. Voters need to realize that parties contain several different ideologies even if they are under the same term like conservatism or liberalism.
Jonah the second part about the candidates is scary but so very true. It seems like people will say "i want a honest politician" all day, but when it comes time to vote the honest one always loses just because he didnt tell the people what they wanted to hear. Its kinda like what i was saying about John Mccain. The very idea of politics seems to be based more on who can say the right thing, than who can do the right thing.
ReplyDeleteAnd about the parties, even with all the sects, parties really do provide a foundation for a voter. As you saw with Crist, he failed as an independent. No one votes for them, even if they are a good choice. At least by labeling yourself you provide a core set of beliefs to start with. If everyone was an independent, it would be far too much work to research the candidates and i honestly dont think anyone would vote. While it may provide for better politicians, i just dont think anyone would actually do the research.
This isnt necessarily any opposition to what you were saying, just a thought response to it.
@ Victoria- I like your idea about how voters should not identify themselves with any specific party. I think that is where a lot of the confusion steps in- someone will vote for a specific candidate because they know their title: “Democrat” or “Republican”. Unfortunately, voters often assume their ideologies instead of thoroughly researching it. And people wonder why they’re so unhappy with politics!
ReplyDelete@ Taylor- I agree that voters should try to receive information as unbiased as possible, but how is that possible today? We remember Mrs. McDermott telling us that it’s not the politicians who control the world, it’s the journalists. They will try to convince us of their opinion, and therefore skew our own. So how do you propose we find unbiased info?
Also, you brought up a good point about how politicians tell voters what they want to hear. Is there any way to find the truth behind their words, or do we once again have to rely on the biased media?
@Lacie- I definitely see what you're saying. Honestly, the only way I see us truly getting an unbiased opinion is by personally knowing the politician... But how often does that happen? I like what you brought up about Mrs. McDermott... It's so true! I wish it wasn't that way, but reality is, there really is no way to control the media. We can't force them to be honest. I suppose the best thing do is gather as much information about each politician as possible and, I guess, compare the information and decide for ourselves what seems true or false. It’s pretty much a lose-lose situation to be a voter.
ReplyDelete@Taylor- Getting an unbiased view of a politician....
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me like politicians will say just about anything to get into office (Obama's promises), so we really can't base our decision on what they're saying because they're putting on a show, a show designed to get you to vote for them. That's what they want. It makes it a tad difficult to be an "informed" voter.
@ Kevin- You're totally right about voters needing to know what they want first. Like you said, so many people go back and forth on whether they support an issue or candidate. Usually people will then just vote for the candidate of their party or whoever seems to be most popular. People would need to do research for this to happen though, and unfortunately I don't see this happening.
ReplyDelete@ Mitch- I completely understand what you said about parties. I don't expect candidates to all become independent. Parties serve sort of as a decision making body for all the lazy people out there. People find the party with which they have most in common,and then when it comes time to vote they all just assume that party's candidate shares the same beliefs as them. Like you said, people just don't want to put in the work. That's why we vote for politicians, so they can solve all our problems for us.
@Jeff
ReplyDeleteIn regards to your statement, "Voters rarely fall on the exact end of either side because both sides are so radical or conservative from the rest of the ideas that are floating around in the modern world," it's interesting if you try out the links from our curiculum binder because the quizzes are a perfect example of what you said. Today, with such a wide range of political issues and concerns there's more than just black and white Democrat and Republican or liberal and conservative. I'd suggest checking out http://politicalcompass.org/ if you haven't already
@Mitch
What you said about "If everyone was an independent, it would be far too much work to research the candidates and i honestly dont think anyone would vote," it's sad that it's the case because really people should be researching the candidates no matter what party they affiliate with. which brings up another thought, is it worse for uneducated voters to go out and vote for a canddate they really know nothing about, either because they associate themselves with the candidate's party or even as ms. duquette said, just because they recognize the name, or for people to just not vote at all?
@Jake Felton I agree with your statement that voters should be more focused on voting for someone that will be more beneficial to the future of the country. To vote for someone just because you like there name and dont know what they stand for is just a wasted vote.
ReplyDelete@Jordan Kalafut I like how you said "people should watch the news such as MSNBC to get infromed about politics." This is so true because the news (for the most part) wont just favor one party or the other. The news usually looks at both parties views and candidates. People that watch the news especially during the elections will definitely be infromed and educated enough to make the right vote.
@schenck-
ReplyDeleteDoing those quizzes over and over is a good way of getting a more accurate idea of where you stand in the political world.
@Justin Cabrera-
You make a good point on making sure that the ideas politicians make are realistic. It is sad that many people believe everything the politicians say, then they vote for them, without actually thinking about if their "plans" for helping us out can actually work.
@Spencer Schultz-
VERY true. That's how it works for them.
@ Taylor- You're right, it does suck being a voter!
ReplyDelete@ Spencer- Sketchy example with Obama, but I agree with you regardless.
@ Both (or anyone alse)- Maybe voters can never be fully informed, but there's definately a difference between finding out as much information as possible and hoping that politicians are telling truth compared to relying solely on polotical label to make a decision.
@Spencer- That's basically what I was trying to say the entire time... haha
ReplyDelete@Lacie- So true. It's better to be semi-informed rather than completely voting off of party lables.
@ Julian
ReplyDeleteAlmost every news are bias. People need to watch a lot of different news shows to get the full story from both side. Yes, people do need to watch news to be inform but they need to watch the same news from different views to make a well educated decision. MSNBC is a good site, but some news reader are still bias.
Cody, and to many others (who believe that we should basically do away with political parties)...after reading your post, I have a new perspective about the insignificancy of political parties. Cody, you stated that "even though politics do indeed differ from region to region, the basis of their beliefs mostly stays the same". And I completely agree with you, on this. It's true that our political parties are no longer "exactly clear" about their degrees of standpoint. Nonetheless, our forms of political parties are influenced by many things. Because our nation is so big, numbering so many states, a democrat from the north might be more extreme than a democrat from the south. However, we must remember they are still both democrats and are under the same..."umbrella". Overall, political parties are generic. They are NOT interest groups. So, voters can still label themselves as a "Democrat", "Republican", or "Liberal"; they just need to be aware that there are DEGREES, even in their "extreme right" or "extreme left" political standpoint.
ReplyDeleteyo yo hears some "food" for thought. Lets say hypothetically, we did away with parties. Everyones like "yay! now we can all be friends". Sorry person of different ideoloy we cant. I still dont agree with you. :) But as we kinda established, we need those parties to form a foundation for ideas. If everyone was like " hears what i think, im not siding with either party" then how would we know where they stand on issues unstated? If they are affiliated we can just assume (which im not sure we should) what they would think. We couldnt possibly know EVERYTHING about someones ideas.
ReplyDeleteAnd lets consider all the powers that come with the two party system. It really does balance the senate and house. Without two parties, everything would be out of wack. People would throw up random votes that dont necessarily represent the will of the people which is the precise reason we vote for the senate and house. So they would have their own agendas and it would ultimately destroy America.
@brad- My dad is just like your grandparents. He always votes for whatever Republican is running, and doesn't even look at the facts.
ReplyDelete@herpderphazelle- I like how you mentioned the biases that different media outlets bring into the picture. Voters must find a way to get the truth, not just what the news says is the truth
@ Jake Hunt via HerpDerp. So how would you reccomend the voters find the truth if all the media sources are biased and the truth is but a needle in the haystack??
ReplyDelete@ Mitchell. Ok so lets say without the two party system then America would be destroyed. That is a huge leap for just american politcs for starters because some one would or lots of people would reform factions and groups to try to keep their complacency since most americans like the regular flow of their own lives and don't want that to change. Second, off your topic, why must we have a two party system? If and since everyone will always have different idea and views wouldn't it be better if there were more parties with all the same power instead of just the republican and democrat parties which control so to say most of america in their pockets and rack up their votes just by their names and not just their views? Yea we have tons of little parties in america but they have no way to let the people know their ideas since the democrats and republicans fib or lie that they already hold those views within their party.
Mason, this is in regards to your question to Mitch, about having multiple parties. True, the the minor groups would have a louder voice, however if there are too many minority groups, the votes would balance out and nothing would get accomplished/agreed upon. So, I think that things should just stay the way they are just because the three broad branches cover all view points (a left, right, and medium). Nonetheless, like I said before, this does not mean that each politician can stand at a certain DEGREE on their viewpoint.
ReplyDelete@Mason, it's elementary, dear boy. As I stated, you simply watch the "conferences" or "meetings" or what have you that these politicians have via youtube or something. Then you get what they are directly saying, up front.
ReplyDeleteAlso Mitch, hold your horses there buddy! The dissolving of the two political parties destroying America? Could you possibly elaborate on that? I felt your reasoning was rather vague and frankly couldn't follow your logic.
@Jonah
ReplyDeleteI agree that I do not see the future giving us more educated voters. As much as everybody knows that people need to be informed on the issues, nobody ever will take the initiative to really learn what is necessary. So that leads to the next question, for the people really DO care, what can we do? The sad thing is that there really is nothing we can do. The way that our constitution works is by limiting the power of factions, and in our case the faction is people who care, but the same limits apply.
@Mason & Mitch
I'm not sure exactly where I stand on the idea of getting rid of political parties and simply focusing on the individual ideas of each candidate. I agree with parts of both sides. It would be ideal if people could just take candidates for their own ideas, and not their affiliations to a party, but I also agree that parties help give a background of the candidates' views. In the end though, I know that it is unrealistic to think that anything similar to the abolishment of political parties is unreal.
@everyone
Here is some more "food for thought"
Ms. Duquette mentioned in class the other day that the majority of votes come from the most simple factor, NAME RECOGNITION! Are you kidding me? By sticking your face on signs and billboards you can get votes regardless of what you say? John McCain is more successful just becuase people know him and know him well, not because he is the best US Senator in history. What does this say about our society and how stupid some people really are?
@Justin- I agree with you what you said, and many other, that people don’t need to go by a party label, but by their own beliefs, and what will affect their future. They need to look at all aspects of the candidate and see where the candidate and themselves agree and disagree. However, the party label helps the candidate, because it is easier to run as a democrat or republican, over running as an independent.
ReplyDelete@Ash- Your point about that politicians say what the voters want to hear, and say that they will do a lot, but most don’t follow through with what they say, is so true. Politicians say anything to get a vote, and even sometimes change their entire opinion for a vote, the example you used was Meg Whitman. Politicians always are trying to get the upper hand over their rival nominee, so by flip-flopping their opinion, to making dishonest proposals, they just want a voters vote.
Hey Kevin it doesn't really say much. Just that we're lazy.
ReplyDeleteAs Americans we do feel this sort of...Necessity and longing to be a part of the democracy that is our government. So, we vote. Do we give enough of a crap look up actual information about politicians we know nothing about? Heavens no. Ergo, you just stick your name everywhere and you're good to go.
brb gonna run for senator
@Cody
ReplyDeleteYou are right, we are just lazy. But what upsets me about that is that after we elect someone into office, we immediately start to complain about them. When someone complains I want to say, "well you're the idiot who voted for them, maybe you should have thought that one through."
Okay allow me to start off saying that I will probably sound stupid with whatever I say. I have had football for 9 hours today and my brain is still turned off. I will turn it on momentarily. Now, with that being said, I will continue.
ReplyDelete@ jonah, I can't say i really agree with you saying that the politicians should just go for the popular party. People will hold you responsible for the party you choose, expect you to share a lot of beliefs with it. If you're a republican and roll democrat, everyone will expect you to roll democrat when elected but you actually are a republican, which will result in the public disliking you and you lying to the public.
@ Mitchell I agree with you saying that you should go with the branch that you share the most ideas and beliefs with. I basically agree with everything you said. Candidates should choose options that identify themselves best and that they share the most with.
@Ty
ReplyDeleteI didn’t think about how the parties are continually evolving and even reversing throughout history, but it is so true. If it realigns would the parties go back to their original beliefs? I agree with you that politicians must also find a way to gain a political standing by going with the majority party in their area. Popularity exists in politics and unfortunately you are right that the status of the parties will bring them votes, not their individual beliefs.
@Victoria
The way that people have allowed the elections to go with name recognition through the wealthier opponents is awful. It should not matter how much money a politician has spent on ads to gain this recognition. The people of today have gotten lazy on their duties of knowing what is happening with their politicians and they need to pay attention to how the parties have different divisions between the extreme and the moderate in the same party. This could be the reason why people are so unsatisfied with their political parties because they are simply not paying attention.
Let me start by saying this is the BEST blog I've ever had. You guys genuinely attacked the question at hand and I was impressed with the level of critical thinking.
ReplyDelete@everyone towing around with dissolving political parties I have two comments.
First- sadly most voters vote purely on party label. plan b- "a name I recognize".
Second, when we do the elections unit- you will see how, good or bad, we are married to the 2-party system. So, I will ask you in class next rotation to think about this.
The boys seem to be dominating the dialogue girlies so get after it next time.
GIRL POWER!
ReplyDelete