7 thoughts on “AmeriNZ 238 – Stop thinking in bumper stickers”

1. Pingback: Tweets that mention » AmeriNZ 238 – Stop thinking in bumper stickers AmeriNZ Podcast: One guy, two countries. -- Topsy.com

2. Lots I could comment on re the Daniel Brewer show, but let me limit to these:
   1. I think Obama was timid early on because he didn’t want to come off as the “angry black man”.
   2. Running for office is an honorable thing, but because the election process is so horrible – need for money, lies – suggesting that someone ELSE should run is difficult for me to endorse.
   3. I’m a poli sci major, and I say it IS too complicated. Take the notion of a supermajority needed to pass legislation in the House so that amendments can’t be attached. I mean I GET it, but it’s kind of “inside baseball”. Oh, and speaking of baseball, people can tell you that Ted Williams batted .406 in 1941 because it’s pretty straightforward. I think baseball history is a lot less murky than American political history. LEARNING political stuff I’d think is HARD unless you were exposed to it as long as you (and I) have been. It might as well BE quantum physics. Yes, it does matter, but the nuances Daniel was talking about DADT, e.g., would involve at least reading the paper or newsweekly regularly. Reading about it on the Internet would be just too damn confusing or misleading.

3. I think it’s not too complicated if it is correctly explained.
   For a complex system based on “unity” and “one dream” it seams not unified and very broken. Every little steps shows more the need for some to start a civil war. And some are very aggressively pushing that.

   On a parliamentary based system party members strategy is to stick together to make a force. If they don’t stick to the party rules they are banned or fined. It doesn’t mean it is a better system but they found a way to make legislation advance. There are still tricks to make things go as slow as the US system. And they use it very well and very often, people (threw media) just don’t notice and forget. Just look at the European parliament: it takes them a huge amount of time to just vote for one simple label typo size on diary products.

   Sticking together makes individual representatives not care for their own voters some times and vote for things they don’t believe in for the sake of all. Or they will be banner: representatives always choose to keep their seat rather than to losing it. It’s hypocritical.

   As Mr. Brewer say, everybody has the right to/can call, write and talk to their representative (if they can reach them), but do they care about your voice? Even if you are in a huge number (but companies has the money and power to block you)? I don’t think so.
   And if they don’t listen your vote will make them notice you as you vote for somebody else? Really? Voting between a bad choice and a lesser bad choice isn’t that exciting of a choice. When it comes to voting you still won’t vote for those that are worse and still vote for those that doesn’t make you advance. And if you do vote for those that will make it worse for you just for the sake of making a point and show your representative you are mad then you are stupid or a masochist.
   And that is what makes people off elections/voting. They just don’t care anymore. Because they don’t listen, they don’t care, they lie and their only purpose is to to get that wealthy job.

4. I have a simple question (not that simple, but needs a simple answer) about the US system, elections and parties:
   It is based on a two party system, right? Is this rule true for every elections? For the nationals, the Senate, locals, etc? I don’t understand how small parties (ex: tea party, independents) get into the system if they are not Republican or Democrat. Is it only for local elections? Or do the big parties make alliances if their own candidate has been swiped away? Why are they caring for running if they can’t get to the top (ex: the nationals where only the 2 parties can apply)?
   Thank you.

5. Yes, it is about simplicity in explaining. It seems people get off the political subject because politicians/experts can’t explain it right and short to people (make the complex understandable). And if they do they just take people for unbrained babies.
   Hum, that is exactly what religions do…

6. HatM asked about the US system, elections and parties: “It is based on a two party system, right? Is this rule true for every elections?”
   Well, yes. And no. The system is designed to sustain the status quo. But the rules differ in EVERY STATE. The definition of a party differs in EVERY STATE.

   For instance, a legitimate party in New York State has to get 50,000 votes in the last gubernatorial election for someone to be able to register AS a member of that party. There used to be a Liberal Party, but it’s now defunct. There is a Working Families Party, and a Conservative Party, and they often endorse the Democratic or Republican candidate. A few years ago, the Green Party ran Al Lewis, Grandpa from the TV show The Munsters, to get to 50,000, and they were successful.
   An independent has to get more signatures – and will generally have a lesser infrastructure to do so.
   The Tea Party is not (usually) an actual party. Most, if not all of them, ran in Republican primaries and won.
   Some parties – the Green Party, the Libertarians in NYS – run to get their message across, with only a small chance of winning. Of course, the press then decides that the minor party candidates have no chance of winning, and cover them even less than before. There are seven candidates for governor in NYS – http://www.albanycounty.com/vote/PDF/2010-general-candidates.pdf – and there was a debate among the seven, which pundits decried as a joke. One of the candidates is a former madame.
   So, NO, I DON’T think it’s simple, HatM.

7. Arthur – you’re going to have to do US Political Process 101 on your podcast, esp for your non-US listener. (OK, your US listeners could use the insight, too.)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.