If demo shifts mean corruption and bad economies aren't penalized as much....
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:26:46 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  If demo shifts mean corruption and bad economies aren't penalized as much....
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: If demo shifts mean corruption and bad economies aren't penalized as much....  (Read 334 times)
Matty
boshembechle
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,905


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 05, 2016, 12:11:49 AM »

That WAPO article that has been posted many times on this board regarding the falling importance of economic performance and corruption issues as america becomes more diverse and less white..

I showed that to a friend of mine, an independent of Asian heritage in CA, and he said it legitimately worried him. 

Look at a state like Kansas or Illinois or Alabama or Louisiana. These states have had intense economics and/or corruption/ethical issues, and most of the time, the party in power is NOT penalized

Throwing away partisanship for a moment, isn't it a BAD thing that some cook county sleazebag or brownback or the disgraced Alabama governor doesn't really feel voter heat because of it?

I don't want to live in a future America where democratic politicians aren't penalized for a job poorly done. As my indy friend said, it's a de-facto third-world style way of doing things.

One potential solution to this is if we do become a one party country, the party itself can just replace the sh**t bags with better ones.
Logged
Hammy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,711
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 05, 2016, 03:07:50 AM »

I really don't understand, especially at state-level and lower, why the parties aren't given the authority even with the two party system to remove such corrupt politicians--one of the things I like about parliamentary systems is that a no-confidence vote can be called even by the party of the individual in question, usually triggering a resignation.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2016, 05:13:20 AM »

That WAPO article that has been posted many times on this board regarding the falling importance of economic performance and corruption issues as america becomes more diverse and less white..

I showed that to a friend of mine, an independent of Asian heritage in CA, and he said it legitimately worried him. 

Look at a state like Kansas or Illinois or Alabama or Louisiana. These states have had intense economics and/or corruption/ethical issues, and most of the time, the party in power is NOT penalized

Throwing away partisanship for a moment, isn't it a BAD thing that some cook county sleazebag or brownback or the disgraced Alabama governor doesn't really feel voter heat because of it?

I don't want to live in a future America where democratic politicians aren't penalized for a job poorly done. As my indy friend said, it's a de-facto third-world style way of doing things.

One potential solution to this is if we do become a one party country, the party itself can just replace the sh**t bags with better ones.
They could. They won't. Why would they?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.018 seconds with 12 queries.