[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;46417433]Yeah, because Democrats aren't racist at all and don't refer to black conservatives as "mouthpieces" or "Uncle Toms". It's kind of what happens when one party gets falsely painted as racist.[/QUOTE]
Once again, regardless of the reasons WHY, it's statistically apparent that the most important part of the republicans voting demographic is white people. even if republicans can somehow get 100% of white votes, by the time white people are 30% of the population, the republican party will be done for if they don't change their platform. They need black and latino votes more than anything. Latino votes is their chosen battleground, since the 1964 civil rights act will, according to Lyndon B. Johnson, "have those niggers voting democratic for the next 200 years." However, can the republicans step their game up quickly enough to get enough Latino votes?
It was a period of 60+ years in which the democrats synonymized their party with civil rights. From Woodrow Wilson onward, the democrats became increasingly liberal, with the civil rights battle concluding in democratic victory, which solidified blacks as the #1 democratic voting base. However, whites may go from 75% to 30% in only [i]30 years[/i]. It took the democrats 60-70 years to change their image from "racist southern confederates" to "the party of JFK and Civil rights", and [i]100 years[/i] from Woodrow Wilson to elect a black president. The question is whether 30 years is enough for the republicans to become the Latino party, and will they be able to put a legitimate latino candidate, not obviously put there for political pandering, on their ticket in that time?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;46417378]But why would it be that [i]white[/i] people have those opinions more than others?
I think the issue really is that old people vote more than young people. Old people are more conservative in general, and more afraid of new things.
Regardless of the reasons [i]why[/i], it's evident that republicans rely on the white vote. Whites make up 75%, and 60% of that is 45%. where the near 50/50 difference between democrats and republicans comes from is how minorities vote. mostly democratic, but the republicans are making more and more effort to pander to them, which helps. The issue that the republicans will face is: Can they captivate the minority voting demographic quickly enough before whites are no longer the significant voting population that they used to be. The future of the republican party in the long-term is dependent on this metric. either way, the republicans are going to have to significantly change their party platform to be more liberal. They will have to beat the democrats at their own game.[/QUOTE]
The reason Democrats are voted in mainly by minorities and Republics are voted in mainly by white, is because Democrats pander to minorities and Republicans pander to Whites. This has been known for a very long time now and has been a well-used tactic for a very long time now. You're not making any new or ground breaking revelations here bud.
Both sides may be very evil but the democrats are massive levels of less evil
[QUOTE=proboardslol;46417538]Once again, regardless of the reasons WHY, it's statistically apparent that the most important part of the republicans voting demographic is white people. even if republicans can somehow get 100% of white votes, by the time white people are 30% of the population, the republican party will be done for if they don't change their platform. They need black and latino votes more than anything. Latino votes is their chosen battleground, since the 1964 civil rights act will, according to Lyndon B. Johnson, "have those niggers voting democratic for the next 200 years." However, can the republicans step their game up quickly enough to get enough Latino votes?
[/QUOTE]
You're under the hilarious assumption that 100% of the population votes, lmfao.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;46417568]Both sides may be very evil but the democrats are massive levels of less evil[/QUOTE]
Dem's just are better at hiding it.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;46417563]The reason Democrats are voted in mainly by minorities and Republics are voted in mainly by white, is because Democrats pander to minorities and Republicans pander to Whites. This has been known for a very long time now and has been a well-used tactic for a very long time now. You're not making any new or ground breaking revelations here bud.[/QUOTE]
No fucking shit sherlock. What I'm saying is that it was a long and arduous process for the democrats to go from "racist confederates" to "the party of minorities". The republicans, however, don't have the amount of time the democrats do. in only 35 years, whites will go from 75% to 30% of the population, and minorities will, combined, outnumber the whites. If current voting demographics continue into 2050, there won't be a republican elected official north of south carolina [i]ever again[/i], let alone as the president. Obviously, those demographics won't continue, as is the nature of politics to evolve, but is 35 years enough time for republicans to make up for the disparity? If they can't use the next 35 years effectively, it could very well be the death of the republican party, either as we know it or institutionally.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;46417609]No fucking shit sherlock. What I'm saying is that it was a long and arduous process for the democrats to go from "racist confederates" to "the party of minorities". The republicans, however, don't have the amount of time the democrats do. in only 35 years, whites will go from 75% to 30% of the population, and minorities will, combined, outnumber the whites. If current voting demographics continue into 2050, there won't be a republican elected official north of south carolina [i]ever again[/i], let alone as the president. Obviously, those demographics won't continue, as is the nature of politics to evolve, but is 35 years enough time for republicans to make up for the disparity? If they can't use the next 35 years effectively, it could very well be the death of the republican party, either as we know it or institutionally.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;46417574]You're under the hilarious assumption that 100% of the population votes, lmfao.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;46417574]You're under the hilarious assumption that 100% of the population votes, lmfao.[/QUOTE]
I'm not but that's not an issue since those who do vote adequately represent a sample of the actual population of the US.
Of the voting population, it goes:
whites - 75%
blacks - 12%
Latino - 8 %
asian - 3 %
and the national population demographics go:
whites - 72.4%
blacks - 12.6%
latino - 16.4%
Asian - 4.8%
So an almost totally proportional amount of people vote in each demographic group, hispanics excluded (who make up the largest group of non-citizen immigrants who CANT vote.)
So the actual percentage of people who do vote doesn't matter since the racial groups in that small group of voters is proportional to the actual racial demographics of the united states
I voted third party in a vain attempt to get rid of this bipartisan system we got going on.
I do it every election.
[QUOTE=JakeIsWin;46415597]The Senate is apart of Congress..[/QUOTE]
You realize there is the House and the Senate right?
The only reason West Virginia voted Republican was to save coal jobs.
West Virginia Democrats are unique in how conservative they are. We has a lot of backwards poor people who hate gays but want to reap the benefits of welfare at the same time.
They should let less white people vote to even it out yeah that will work
[QUOTE=Katatonic717;46417673]I voted third party in a vain attempt to get rid of this bipartisan system we got going on.
I do it every election.[/QUOTE]
I recognize your attempt to fix this two party issue, but in a two party state, voting for a third party is almost a waste of a vote. I feel that unless a revolution happens, the only way to get the most value out of my vote is to vote for Republican or Democrat, whichever party I share the most ideas with. Third party voters must hate me.
That being said, since the Republican Party owns congress and has a new leader, what is its agenda now?
[QUOTE=Banhfunbags;46417738]I recognize your attempt to fix this two party issue, but in a two party state voting for a third party is almost a waste of a vote. I feel that unless a revolution happens, the only way to get the most value out of my vote is by voting for Republican or Democrat, whichever party I share the most ideals with. Third party voters must hate me.
[/QUOTE]
That's what makes people not vote third party. The only waste of a vote is no vote at all.
I vote for the Green Party in every election and I always urge people who don't want to vote or disagree with the two main parties to do the same.
[QUOTE=Banhfunbags;46417738]I recognize your attempt to fix this two party issue, but in a two party state voting for a third party is almost a waste of a vote. I feel that unless a revolution happens, the only way to get the most value out of my vote is by voting for Republican or Democrat, whichever party I share the most ideals with. Third party voters must hate me.
That being said, since the Republican Party owns congress and has a new leader, what is its agenda now?[/QUOTE]
I said this last night, but if they actually do reasonable things and stop the complete inaction of congress I'll have some newfound respect for them. Someone rumored that they have 10 bipartisan bills ready to send to the senate, that obama would support.
But that's not what's going to happen. Their only goal is to make sure obama does absolutely nothing. They would rather throw the country away than to do anything that makes obama look slightly good.
And the worst thing is their tactic is working.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;46417649]I'm not but that's not an issue since those who do vote adequately represent a sample of the actual population of the US.
Of the voting population, it goes:
whites - 75%
blacks - 12%
Latino - 8 %
asian - 3 %
and the national population demographics go:
whites - 72.4%
blacks - 12.6%
latino - 16.4%
Asian - 4.8%
So an almost totally proportional amount of people vote in each demographic group, hispanics excluded (who make up the largest group of non-citizen immigrants who CANT vote.)
So the actual percentage of people who do vote doesn't matter since the racial groups in that small group of voters is proportional to the actual racial demographics of the united states[/QUOTE]
What sources are those made up from?
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;46417811]What sources are those made up from?[/QUOTE]
The election results statistic is [url=http://www.cnn.com/election/2014/results/main]CNN[/url]
The National demographics statistics is [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity]wikipedia[/url]
(see a bit past the first three demographics for "Hispanic or latino")
[QUOTE=Katatonic717;46417776]That's what makes people not vote third party. The only waste of a vote is no vote at all.
I vote for the Green Party in every election and I always urge people who don't want to vote or disagree with the two main parties to do the same.[/QUOTE]
CGP Grey has a video on third parties, but basically if I vote normally vote Republican because Democrats have interests that are against mine and I decide one election to vote for a third party just cause, I'm increasing the chances that the party against me will win while my vote is probably going to go unrepresented since I'm voting third party. So voting for a third party is a lose lose.
Also I think most people share the same ideas with the Republicans or Democrats anyways.
[QUOTE=Katatonic717;46417673]I voted third party in a vain attempt to get rid of this bipartisan system we got going on.
I do it every election.[/QUOTE]
Excellent job literally throwing your vote away. You might as well have not voted at all.
Damn it, UK, can you export Labor to US, so there is a good party to vote for in elections?
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;46417865]Excellent job literally throwing your vote away. You might as well have not voted at all.[/QUOTE]
Yes, how dare he have different ideas and vote the way he wants to vote.
[QUOTE=MajorWX;46415170][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/KpbYmeH.png[/IMG]
Damnit western NC. Only my county and the Indian reserve voted Democrat.[/QUOTE]
That's because Buffalo and Rochester are fed up with NYC's shit :v:
[QUOTE=Banhfunbags;46417944]Yes, how dare he have different ideas and vote the way he wants to vote.[/QUOTE]
He can be as different and a unique little snowflake if he wants to be one, but voting third party is throwing literally your vote away. Most third parties don't even break 1% of votes. Knowing that and still voting for them is a complete waste.
Why are there only two parties in america? Please spoonfeed me.
[QUOTE=Scot;46418067]Why are there only two parties in america? Please spoonfeed me.[/QUOTE]
Because the simplest solutions wins, and in a country such as america these two parties manage to cover broad areas. The reason we don't have more is because generally when libertarian parties get larger they generally start leaning more left or more right, then get absorbed into either republicans or democratic parties.
If this was an imperial democracy/constitutional monarchy, we would see more parties, but remain a "true" democracy we generally fall into a 1 of 2 party system.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;46418029]He can be as different and a unique little snowflake if he wants to be one, but voting third party is throwing literally your vote away. Most third parties don't even break 1% of votes. Knowing that and still voting for them is a complete waste.[/QUOTE]
Yeah how dare people actually try to make the system work as it was intended to work. Instead lets just continue playing the lesser of two evils game where the difference between who is lesser happens to apparently be who is currently not in the spotlight known as the presidential office.
[QUOTE=draugur;46418147]Yeah how dare people actually try to make the system work as it was intended to work. Instead lets just continue playing the lesser of two evils game where the difference between who is lesser happens to apparently be who is currently not in the spotlight known as the presidential office.[/QUOTE]
Eh, the Independent parties generally have little understanding of a large scale government, they work fine in small clusters of cities or communities, but tend to fall apart when you have to take on the scale of +300 million people. I've still yet to see a independent with a strong large scale plan which includes compromising of other parties and economic plans.
[QUOTE=Scot;46418067]Why are there only two parties in america? Please spoonfeed me.[/QUOTE]
We have a first-past-the-post system of whoever's the first to get the majority wins everything, rather than a proportional system where we set out delegates according to the percentages. You could have a group 55% support, but if 15% split off for a new party, neither will win and the 45% party will win instead.
[QUOTE=Scot;46418067]Why are there only two parties in america? Please spoonfeed me.[/QUOTE]
It has just always been.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system[/url]
[quote="wikipedia"]historically, there have been few instances in which third party candidates won an election. In the First Party System, only the Federalist Party and Thomas Jefferson's Republican Party were significant political parties. Toward the end of the First Party System, the Republicans held a single-party system (primarily under the Presidency of James Monroe). Under the Second Party System, the Republican Party split during the election of 1824 into Adams' Men and Jackson's Men. In 1828, the modern Democratic Party formed in support of Andrew Jackson. The National Republicans were formed in support of John Quincy Adams. After the National Republicans collapsed, the Whig Party and the Free Soil Party quickly formed and collapsed. In 1854, the modern Republican Party formed from a loose coalition of former Whigs, Free Soilers and other anti-slavery activists.
During the Third Party System, the Republican Party was the dominant political faction, but the Democrats held a strong, loyal coalition in the Solid South. During the Fourth Party System, the Republicans remained the dominant Presidential party, although Democrats Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson were both elected to two terms. In 1932, at the onset of the Fifth Party System, Democrats took firm control of national politics with the landslide victories of Franklin D. Roosevelt in four consecutive elections. Other than the two terms of Republican Dwight Eisenhower from 1953 to 1961, Democrats retained firm control of the Presidency until the mid-1960s. Since the mid-1960s, despite a number of land slides (such as Ronald Reagan carrying 49 states and 58% of the popular vote over Walter Mondale in 1984), Presidential elections have been competitive between the predominant Republican and Democratic parties and no one party has been able to hold the Presidency for more than three consecutive terms. In the election of 2012, only 4% separated the popular vote between Barack Obama (51%) and Mitt Romney (47%), although Obama won the electoral vote by a landslide (332-206).
Throughout every American party system, no third party has won a Presidential election or majorities in either house of Congress. Despite that, third parties and third party candidates have gained traction and support. In the election of 1912, Theodore Roosevelt won 27% of the popular vote and 88 electoral votes running as a Progressive. In the 1992 Presidential election, Ross Perot won 19% of the popular vote but no electoral votes running as an Independent.[/quote]
[editline]5th November 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;46418166]Eh, the Independent parties generally have little understanding of a large scale government, they work fine in small clusters of cities or communities, but tend to fall apart when you have to take on the scale of +300 million people. I've still yet to see a independent with a strong large scale plan which includes compromising of other parties and economic plans.[/QUOTE]
Not like the majority parties know anything either. This is pretty evident when the entire Republican campaign platform is practically set on revivalism of Reagan's and Hoover's economic policies as an example. Neither of the majority parties are particularly smart, the system is just so large that they've yet to do enough damage to cause a complete systematic collapse.
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;46417584]Dem's just are better at hiding it.[/QUOTE]
If you have to say "even though it doesn't look like it, that other party is secretly just as bad as ours", you're not really doing a good job of arguing for your party.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
