Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight
Who ever said we live in a democracy?
|
Seriously. You don't consider the U.S. a democracy. I really can't offer any response here because I have no idea how to discuss that issue. It's like denying that a horse has four feet. So, yeah...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Stroup
...if all a presidential candidate cared about were raw votes when Los Angeles and Denver are fighting over water access and allocations then it is a slam dunk that you promise LA whatever they want to gain 3 million votes and lose 1 million in Colorado. The sensibleness of Colorado objections doesn't matter at all. Instead, ideally, the candidate is stuck trying to find a third way that will perhaps get him both LA and Colorado.
|
I'm not convinced that in today's world that would happen because I don't think it's that simple. If a candidate were to do that in today's society of instant news coverage and independent blogs, his promise to L.A. would go out over the airwaves and most likely piss off more than just the Coloradoans (Is that how you collectively refer to Colorado residents?) since everyone nowadays has an opinion on everything. There'd be concerned citizens everywhere who would look at that and say, "Well, he's just making false promises." Or, "If he'll write off Colorado that easily, then he probably doesn't care about us either" and vote for the other guy. The general public is more informed today than in the past, and I think that even with a popular vote a national candidate would still have to tread lightly for fear of losing the votes of the like-minded. Maybe I’m wrong and only those directly involved in the issue
would let it change their minds, but after the national outcry over Katrina or other localized events like it, I just don’t believe that we live in a world anymore where people are that attached to just their own state, county, city or whatever. We’ve been taught for years now to “think globally,” and I think candidates would have to contend with that.