Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Parrot Head
Like homeboy, I believe El Guapo is EL Wrong-o on this one. The 5-10% on either end are the most vocal and the squeaky wheel gets something (pork barrel grease?). I'm sure if you asked the general population, they would say the majority of research money should go towards saving lives affected by diseases that affect the most people, yet AIDS money is WAY up there. WHy? Because they are vocal and mobilized.
How many people vote a certain way only because of the abortion issue? So why is that brought up over and over and over in every freaking election higher than the Barstow Dog Catcher race? On the right, how many people really don't care if the government puts some sort of limitations on owning military assault rifles? Yet the NRA would have you believe it's vital to our existence.
It'd be interesting to take the mic out of the hands of those who vote straight-ticket based solely on party affiliation. I think our elections and campaigns would be much more productive.
|
I've been fed up with both parties and with politicians in general, but party politics serve their purpose. Countries with party-centered systems generally do better than those with candidate-centered systems. In some coutnries the party just puts 4 or 5 candidates on a ticket and you vote for the party.
It's supposed to focus the electorate on the national interest and avoid particularism. Unfortunately, this aint happening with Delay's system of earmarks. I couldn't believe my ears when Bush told him to look for more areas to cut spending, and he said there weren't any more. Freakin' politicians.