I'm losing Confidence In Obama

[Seeker630]

I think we've been dropped, truth be known. He used us in the election, and now--------------

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-..._b_450099.html

I am seriously re-considering my options for the next election cycle.

[Don Alhambra]

He's always been a Christian, to be fair.

There are a lot of things that he's done that I am very pleased about, and a good fair few that I think are wrongheaded. On balance, I think he's doing pretty well.

[Seeker630]

It's just so disheartening that in regard to the Faith Based office, he promised the Moon, yet has done absolutely nothing in a full year in office.

[BeaverIslander]

If you remember, some of us had no confidence in him prior to the election. He's entirely a creature of party politics as usual.

[homo hirsutus]

I was under no illusion that he was any different than any other politician, but I still slightly regret voting for him. I wish I had gone with my gut (and my brain) and voted Green Party.

[lpetrich]

So he's like Bill Clinton.

At least his health-care bill has gotten farther than Bill Clinton's.

As to that Faith-Based Initiative, it seems to me like he doesn't want to seem anti-religion.

[Lifelinking]

I am seriously re-considering my options for the next election cycle.

What are the alternatives Seeker? (sorry to be dense but I have no in depth knowledge of the system in the US)

[Seeker630]

Originally Posted by Lifelinking

What are the alternatives Seeker? (sorry to be dense but I have no in depth knowledge of the system in the US)

Realistically, the only alternatives are to vote for a minority party, or not vote at all. Either way your vote doesn't count, but at least you can make a statement. My 3rd option is to vote Socialist or Green, but the Greens here come across as a bunch of whack jobs. They are the polar opposites of Libertarians if that tells you anything.

If I decide to go with one of these,I'll be sure to send the Democratic party a note saying why I did.

Not that it would do much good. This isn't at all like the Parliamentary system where minority parties get at least some representation and say-so, and there has to be coalition building to get things done. Here it's whoever wins the election generally gets to fuck over the other side, except when it's as close and polarized as it has been in this country for the last 15 years or more. There is NO reaching across the aisle any more in either house of Congress. For all intents and purposes bi-partisanship is a figment of the imagination, at least on major issues.

[Lifelinking]

Thank you Seeker, that is really helpful information.

[Seeker630]

Originally Posted by Lifelinking

Thank you Seeker, that is really helpful information.

I wish it wasn't.

[BeaverIslander]

Perhaps the tea-baggers will break that stalemate and fracture the Republikkken party. That could be a good thing if it weren't for the fact that the Democrats allow themselves to be pushed around by Republicans-in-sheep's-clothing like Bart Stupak.

[lucky mud]

I've often wondered how well a no party system might work. Just elect someone on their own merits and not what party they are in.

[lpetrich]

A side effect of First Past the Post -- the worst system.

There are alternatives that do much better. Approval Voting (vote for whichever ones you like - can be more than one). Preference Voting (rank the candidates in preference order). Proportional Representation.

[Seeker630]

Originally Posted by lpetrich

A side effect of First Past the Post -- the worst system.

There are alternatives that do much better. Approval Voting (vote for whichever ones you like - can be more than one). Preference Voting (rank the candidates in preference order). Proportional Representation.

Can someone in here from the U.K., Canada or Australia tell us-----is "proportional" voting not essentially the foundation of the parliamentary system? That is my impression at any rate. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Don Alhambra]

Nope, I'm pretty sure it's first past the post. Both the UK and Canada have the FPTP system, not sure about Australia. Though I do know that it is compulsory to vote there.

[lpetrich]

In party-list proportional representation, one votes for a party, and each party gets a number of legislature seats in proportion to how many votes it had received. PR systems include various algorithms for getting integer numbers of seats from the fractions that one calculates.

Mixed-member or additional-member PR (MMP) features single-member districts with additional members chosen by party-list PR.

Single Transferable Vote is another form of PR, a multiseat extension of Instant Runoff Voting.

In IRV, voters vote their preferences, and when the ballots are counted up, the candidate that got the fewest votes is removed from the race and that candidate's ballots are bumped down to the next preference. This process is repeated until a candidate gets a majority vote.

In STV, not only losers but also winners are removed from the race. A candidate wins if they are over an appropriate quota, and their "extra" votes are used for the remaining candidates.


The US: mostly FPTP, though some cities and states have runoff elections for some races.

The UK: FPTP
Scotland: MMP
Wales: MMP
Northern Ireland: STV
Ireland: STV
Canada: FPTP
Australia: (House) IRV, (Senate) STV
New Zealand: MMP
South Africa: Party-List PR
Germany: MMP

Many places have pure party-list PR.

[BigBlue2]

Originally Posted by Seeker630

Can someone in here from the U.K., Canada or Australia tell us-----is "proportional" voting not essentially the foundation of the parliamentary system? That is my impression at any rate. Maybe I'm wrong.

As lpetrich said, in Australia we have preferential voting for the Lower House and proportional representation for the Senate. This usually means that the Lower House is dominated by the 2 big parties (Labor and the Liberal/National coalition - the occasional independent gets in on primary votes if he/she is hugely popular in his/her seat), while in the Senate the balance of power is usually held by minor parties such as the Greens, and/or Independents.

[Ikari Gendou]

President is only a moderate liberal and I would prefer electing a Socially Democratic President. I look at the other side and quickly give President Obama a mental hug.

[Herk]

There's no doubt in my mind that the McCain/Palin ticket would have been disastrous. And there is no doubt in my mind that Obama's administration is doing some good. But the gulf between what we'd like to see and what's actually happening is mighty. Obama is certainly not the source of our problems. He's only one man - an important man, certainly, but the government is composed of a lot of people. If he's given up on his 'change we can believe in' tactic, we shouldn't be surprised. Fighting the obstinate and irrational repugs is such a challenge that any change in a good direction is amazing. But he does seem to have changed horses somewhere crossing the stream, and his rhetoric has devolved into a very Bush-like parroting. So our government is same old, same old.

We can hope that he's getting his sea legs and will come out in a second term with something that will make him worth remembering besides a failed health care plan. But even having an intact economy would be a worthwhile thing. And from where I sit, it isn't looking too good.

[Ikari Gendou]

Originally Posted by Herk

We can hope that he's getting his sea legs and will come out in a second term with something that will make him worth remembering besides a failed health care plan. But even having an intact economy would be a worthwhile thing. And from where I sit, it isn't looking too good.

First, health care reform is not quite dead yet. If the Democrats can stop squabbling among themselves, it will pass. Second, the reason the economy is sputtering is that the first stimulus plan was too small. Over the past two years we lost about 1 trillion USD in potential real GDP. We need more deficit spending to close the gap and restart our economy. Machiavelli said that a leader should always make the hard decisions in the beginning of his ascension. President Obama should have pushed for a 2+ trillion USD stimulus plan while it was politically viable. It is already too late. The way is blocked. C'est la vie.

[homo hirsutus]

I thought of this thread when I read this article from Newsweek:

Civil Liberties Board Goes Vacant Under Obama

When President Bush two years ago failed to name members to a federal board to monitor the protection of civil liberties, Democrats and activist groups were duly outraged, seeing it as one more example of his administration's indifference to the subject.

But more than a year into a new presidency, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board—created by Congress in 2007—remains as much a cipher under Barack Obama as it was under George W. Bush. The White House has yet to nominate a single person to sit on the five-person board. It has no members, no staff, and no office....

[Herk]

Originally Posted by Ikara Gendou

First, health care reform is not quite dead yet.

But what sort of monster will it be? Does anyone even know what it is they're trying to pass? IMHO, if we get health care, it may not be anything we wanted and much of what we feared.

[Ikari Gendou]

Originally Posted by Herk

But what sort of monster will it be? Does anyone even know what it is they're trying to pass? IMHO, if we get health care, it may not be anything we wanted and much of what we feared.

The basic plan has not changed much since the debate started a year ago. The three major points -- eliminating pre-existing conditions, mandating health insurance for all Americans, and subsidies for low-middle class Americans -- are still intact. What really scares me is that if we pass up this opportunity to make some sort of reform, we will continue to see health care costs explode and the Republicans have no plan to stop it.

[homo hirsutus]

I thought the mandate was out. VA house of delegates passed a bill nullifying mandates for the purchase of health insurance. I could have sworn I read somewhere that it was pointless because mandates had been taken out of the federal bill anyway. As stupid and dangerous at the whole thing is, it would be kind of interesting to see a 21st century nullification crisis. It could only be better if SC was leading the idiocy.

[Seeker630]

Originally Posted by homo hirsutus

I thought the mandate was out. VA house of delegates passed a bill nullifying mandates for the purchase of health insurance. I could have sworn I read somewhere that it was pointless because mandates had been taken out of the federal bill anyway. As stupid and dangerous at the whole thing is, it would be kind of interesting to see a 21st century nullification crisis. It could only be better if SC was leading the idiocy.

It's this little game state legislatures play to look good to some of their right wing voter bases-----the federal gov't passes a law we don't like so we "nullify" it. Which is of course meaningless nonsense unless the state is willing to secede from the Union.

I think we went through that one in 1860-1865.

Douchebags.