If Rick Santorum becomes President, we're all in a lot of trouble.

[[JAC]ProfessorOak]

^Yeah it's important that we Europeans understand that else we get a highly distorted view. That said he is second place in the lead opposition so lhunes good god comment is definitely warranted.

P.S. To put things in perspective Santorum won Ohio with 97k votes, whereas the adult population is something close to 2.8million. So he really got 3-4% of the vote, and these are of course people who are already registered republicans. Don't get me wrong, that's still scary despite what appears to be a low percentage, but it's hardly representative of Ohio, and certainly not the entire U.S.

[Lhune]

Bah state politics. I should really look into it more thoroughly. Having said that, does the 3-4% mean that there are a shitton of people who don't vote at all? Or that there are a shitton of other candidates and he just happens to be at the top of the list?

[pechkin]

not like guy who is mormon, protects rich and still want to force war with iran is any better, obama is a lesser evil of all those i think..

[Beanybag]

Bah state politics. I should really look into it more thoroughly. Having said that, does the 3-4% mean that there are a shitton of people who don't vote at all? Or that there are a shitton of other candidates and he just happens to be at the top of the list?

That might be true but the ongoing elections are just to see who the republican party chooses to run in the general presidential election. That's the republican primary and only registered republicans can vote in it. The actual election hasn't started yet.
__________________

[Lhune]

That might be true but the ongoing elections are just to see who the republican party chooses to run in the general presidential election. That's the republican primary and only registered republicans can vote in it. The actual election hasn't started yet.

What might be true sorry?

But to get this straight; the person that gets chosen in this particular election will be the one (and the only one) who can become president (as in, compete with the other candidates, whoever they may be and whatever they may represent)?

[Beanybag]

What might be true sorry?

But to get this straight; the person that gets chosen in this particular election will be the one (and the only one) who can become president (as in, compete with the other candidates, whoever they may be and whatever they may represent)?

Sorry, wasn't very clear. It might be true that not many people vote, I don't know the statistic. Since the U.S. is mostly a two-party system, let's just deal with the democrats and republicans.

Since Barack Obama ran as a democrat and is the incumbent, he'll automatically represent the democratic party candidate (for the next election, the democrats will have their own primary). The republicans use the primaries to choose a candidate to run against him. So the primary election is an election to decide who runs in the election. A little confusing, but just think of it as like... the semi-finals.

The thing about primaries is that only registered republicans can vote and help decide who the republican candidate can be. As many (if not most) voters are actually independent or undecided, primaries don't get the highest turn-outs. Maybe 20-30% of eligible voters in the U.S. are registered republicans (and same for democrats). Democrat party primaries actually don't require you to be a registered democrat to vote in their primaries, but I'm sure the turn-out is still less.
__________________

[Lhune]

So, like this (simplified)?



I find it easier to think in pictures surprisingly enough, lol.

[[JAC]ProfessorOak]

Yeah pretty much, although the democrats have primaries too, but there's nobody running who's a serious threat to Obama.

There's also slight variations of primaries that let different groups vote. For example one may let only registered party members vote, another registered party members and independents, and another any eligible voter regardless. Sometimes caucuses are used in lieu of primaries, which as I understand it means a whole bunch of people gathered in a church or town hall derping to decide instead of a more formal vote.

Oh and depending on what state you live in the primaries/cauceses can be ignored.

and then theres super asdasghvasjda

[Beanybag]

Yeah pretty much, although the democrats have primaries too, but there's nobody running who's a serious threat to Obama.

Wait, really? I thought Obama just won automatically by being the incumbent. Or is it that they have primaries, but no one runs out of some sort of understood agreement..
__________________

[[JAC]ProfessorOak]

Wait, really? I thought Obama just won automatically by being the incumbent. Or is it that they have primaries, but no one runs out of some sort of understood agreement..

Pretty sure they hold primaries, even if it's just for the sake of holding primaries. Jimmy Carter almost lost his presidency that way.

[[JAC]ProfessorOak]

[Hat_Truck]

Also I'm pretty sure independent parties don't have primaries, because nobody is going to vote for them anyway (some Democracy huh?)

[[eR]Ekamo]

Also I'm pretty sure independent parties don't have primaries, because nobody is going to vote for them anyway (some Democracy huh?)

Well, if no one votes for them, that's the will of the people right?

Why I don't view America as a true democracy is because it is restricted by some really outdated rules and conventions (the Constitution) which basically only benefits the lobbyists and the already existing parties and its members.

[Hat_Truck]

Well, if no one votes for them, that's the will of the people right?

The will of the people is irrelevant when the average person isn't intelligent enough to make an educated decision.

As long as there are only 2 parties to choose from, it will never be a true Democracy.

[Beanybag]

Well, if no one votes for them, that's the will of the people right?

Why I don't view America as a true democracy is because it is restricted by some really outdated rules and conventions (the Constitution) which basically only benefits the lobbyists and the already existing parties and its members.

wat. You must not be from the U.S.
__________________

[Lhune]

There aren't only two parties to choose from though; it's just that people perceive it that way which kind of destroys the whole idea of democracy.

Just imagine that suddenly, overnight, everybody simultaneously decided to vote for the party they actually want to vote for. I'm curious what the results would be then.

[Hat_Truck]

The will of the people is irrelevant when the average person isn't intelligent enough to make an educated decision.

That's where the first part of my statement comes in lol. If people were smart and not sheep, there would probably be more than two parties

[Beanybag]

I think it has to do with people being unable to accept how little we know. They want to believe that what they believe is right - they want to be correct. But most things aren't so easy, it's not always so simple to find the truth. People either don't want to do the work, or they are afraid to admit that they could be wrong. I feel like the problem might be with a lack of critical thinking. I think it's something that should be taught in schools, that people should question and doubt more, that we need more research and to examine all the evidence before we form beliefs. But I'm also sure there's more to it than that (no doubt some problems from the actual system itself, but beyond systematic problems). It might be something I'll research, but maybe someone else has some answers.
__________________

[Hat_Truck]

I feel like the problem might be with a lack of critical thinking. I think it's something that should be taught in schools, that people should question and doubt more, that we need more research and to examine all the evidence before we form beliefs. But I'm also sure there's more to it than that (no doubt some problems from the actual system itself, but beyond systematic problems). It might be something I'll research, but maybe someone else has some answers.

Absolutely.

I think you are right on.

Your analysis of incompetent people being unable to detect their own incompetence has also been an empirically observed effect.

Ironically, the phenomenon of competent people underestimating their abilities has also been observed. In this case, I think you are undervaluing your conclusion.

In American schools we aren't taught how to think, we're taught what to think. It is just that simple. If school was more about skepticism and free-thinking, and less about conditioning, I think the future of the country would look very different.

[[GnJA]Good_Apollo]

Absolutely.

I think you are right on.

Your analysis of incompetent people being unable to detect their own incompetence has also been an empirically observed effect.

Ironically, the phenomenon of competent people underestimating their abilities has also been observed. In this case, I think you are undervaluing your conclusion.

In American schools we aren't taught how to think, we're taught what to think. It is just that simple. If school was more about skepticism and free-thinking, and less about conditioning, I think the future of the country would look very different.

With state and federal government embracing more and more standardization when it comes to testing and coursework, don't expect any changes in education in your lifetime.

No Child Left Behind rofl. The irony of cutting a school's funding when they fail to teach their students will go down in history somewhere as a hilarious footnote.