Best Political Cartoons

[dpareja]

Notice how Eisenhower, a REBUBLICAN, had a higher rate than Johnson, a democrat. If the modern republican party took after Eisenhower... Well, I'd still oppose them, but at least I'd have respect for them.

Eisenhower is why I laugh about the Republican Party pushing the 22nd Amendment. It didn't affect Truman--he didn't run in 1952 because he lost the New Hampshire primary to Estes Kefauver (though he claimed that he'd already decided not to seek the nomination anyway)--but it did affect Eisenhower, who was a popular moderate, and made them run Nixon in 1960 instead.

(1960 was also the first televised debate, and the results were striking: people watching on TV generally said Kennedy won, while people listening on radio said Nixon won.)

[R. U. Sirius]

Where's Carter in the scheme of things?

[Ironchew]

[Ultimate Paragon]

[Random Gal]

[Ultimate Paragon]

This is why I can't stand voter apathy.

[Sigmaleph]

If you look at it the other way around, voter apathy is a sign of a secure democracy. People don't struggle for the right to choose their leaders when they are confident that they already have that right.

[Askold]

If you look at it the other way around, voter apathy is a sign of a secure democracy. People don't struggle for the right to choose their leaders when they are confident that they already have that right.

Or that they have simply lost faith in democracy.

In Finland elders complain that the youth aren't voting. The problem is that the only candidates that pass elections are almost entirely 30+ years old. The youth tried to get their voice heard and when they failed repeatedly they lost the motivation.

This is affected by the way the vote count works in Finland. The person who gets the most votes in party X is counted as having gotten all their votes, the second has 50% and so on. This means that the few "veterans" who consistently get votes (and more importantly, get votes from OUR numerous baby boomer generation) are the most likely to pass and the rookies are only "sacrificial lambs" who get votes for the party but will not be able to win.

[dpareja]

If you look at it the other way around, voter apathy is a sign of a secure democracy. People don't struggle for the right to choose their leaders when they are confident that they already have that right.

Or that they have simply lost faith in democracy.

In Finland elders complain that the youth aren't voting. The problem is that the only candidates that pass elections are almost entirely 30+ years old. The youth tried to get their voice heard and when they failed repeatedly they lost the motivation.

This is affected by the way the vote count works in Finland. The person who gets the most votes in party X is counted as having gotten all their votes, the second has 50% and so on. This means that the few "veterans" who consistently get votes (and more importantly, get votes from OUR numerous baby boomer generation) are the most likely to pass and the rookies are only "sacrificial lambs" who get votes for the party but will not be able to win.

/looks up Finnish electoral system

That's an... interesting system.

[Askold]

It has some benefits.

The main idea is that you vote for the party you want and since the parties have an official line on what they wish to accomplish and what they support/oppose no matter who you pick they will mostly vote on those. Since we have several parties you can go through those and pick the one that suits you most. There are few parties that don't do that like the green party where you might vote for a peaceful hippie and get the one christian-fundie (who opposes gay marriage in otherwise pro-gay party) in the party.

The obvious problem is that this makes it hard for new/young politicians unless they are some kind of celebreties.

The other problem is that most of the parties are pretty close to each other politically and in most major issues because everyone had been playing "safe" for the last decades. Things did get shaken up a bit a few years ago. For example Kokoomus is doing their best to emulate the Republicans in USA. Privatise everything, demolish the healthcare system and lower taxes for the rich seem to be their goals. (Suprisingly whenever we do badly economically they get voted in for the same reasons why USA votes Republicans and then they proceed to fuck things up and make everything even worse. Not that their voters would see it this way. They think the "big goverment" is to blame for everything.)

[Alehksunos]

This is why I can't stand voter apathy.

Fuck this country [the United States].

[Eiki-mun]

It's hard to get excited about voting when your choice doesn't really matter because of the state you live in. What's the point of a Democrat in Idaho even trying?

Or, hell, since I'll be moving soon, a Democrat in California.

[Alehksunos]

It's even harder when you live in a state where an undesirable party has been dominant for years, especially when members of said party are extremists.

Like just yesterday, weeks after being proven unconstitutional, House Bill 2 has been reinstated and it's even more brutal now. I'm going to be so fucking pissed if that doesn't motivate enough people to vote against the incumbent party responsible for all this, and way more than half - not even three quarters - of the home state has been against this.

[Ultimate Paragon]

[Ultimate Paragon]