Watered down? I don't know I have been totally indoctrinated with Tim Horton's coffee. Maybe they make it different in the States, but I hate weak coffee and I think it does me just fine. But then again I've gone out of my way to make sure I don't drink Starbucks. I would just as soon pick up a small heroin addiction.
As far as your post, for sure you're right. The question, which I touched on in our discussion last week, is what do we DO about it. My sense is this will happen organically. That post-Obama, a less skilled Democrat (my god, the thought!)will alienate a significant portion of the left and we will be left with a centrist party. But I broke this down last week.
I completely agree that the emphasis is on winning, and the electorate has very little reason to get caught up in anything other then the cult of personality. For better or worse this is the nature of our culture (and, lets face it, pretty much every western culture throughout history).
I'm aboot to watch a hockey game, eh and eat some moose burgers drenched with maple syrup. But I'll follow up on this.
What we really need is Zach to come in a lay down some angry shit. You know, point out our grammatical flaws and spelling errors (vooting? maybe its not me who is turning into a Canadian sterotype).
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Tim Horton's
Ever since Timmy Ho's came out with that extra large coffee for less than two dollars I find myself running train on a Ho's drive-thru every now and again. But I have to say, the coffee seems very watered down. I really do not like it very much, it is never as satisfying as the other big names or the coffee I make at home.
I sincerely hope you win though, maybe they know that you are not really a canuck....
Back to the topic at hand, I said I would continue expanding on numbers 2 and 3 from my previous post, here is what they are: 2) the system tacitly fosters the idea that "winning" is more important than doing what is right (this is created partly by the onus on loyalty and partly by the competitive nature of our culture at large), and 3) the system leads people to be mildly aware of political issues they vote for, but doesn't require them to understand their point of view, or their vote, beyond the party label.
After reading this again I think it would be prudent to read the final two reasons in reverse order. It is partly because a person's awareness of politics rarely transcends the party label that the process of voting becomes more about winning than knowing what or who to vote for. That vooting booth experience that I described in the earlier post really makes me question how democratic our system really is given the participation. Democracy has to be more of a two-way street between the representatives and the represented if it is going to work as it was intended.
Where you at Zach?
I sincerely hope you win though, maybe they know that you are not really a canuck....
Back to the topic at hand, I said I would continue expanding on numbers 2 and 3 from my previous post, here is what they are: 2) the system tacitly fosters the idea that "winning" is more important than doing what is right (this is created partly by the onus on loyalty and partly by the competitive nature of our culture at large), and 3) the system leads people to be mildly aware of political issues they vote for, but doesn't require them to understand their point of view, or their vote, beyond the party label.
After reading this again I think it would be prudent to read the final two reasons in reverse order. It is partly because a person's awareness of politics rarely transcends the party label that the process of voting becomes more about winning than knowing what or who to vote for. That vooting booth experience that I described in the earlier post really makes me question how democratic our system really is given the participation. Democracy has to be more of a two-way street between the representatives and the represented if it is going to work as it was intended.
Where you at Zach?
Friday, February 27, 2009
A silly pointless diversion
In the midst of the next few weeks I'm going to track something that will mean absolutely nothing to you Americans.
But here in Canada it is "Roll up the Rim" time at Tim Horton's. The idea is that if you buy a coffee, you get to roll up the little top fold and you can win something (usually a coffee or donut). Now, it is a fairly normal occurrence to win. This promotion started on Tuesday (I believe) and our local Tim Horton's has already given away 178 "prizes". My fiancee has already won.
I, on the other hand, have not won anything in two years. This is completely inexplicable, but I'm going to use this blog to track how many cups of coffee I go before actually winning something. If this blog post is in fact a jinx, then you will never hear of this again. If, as I suspect, this is a grand Tim Horton's conspiracy against me for not talking up their American franchises enough then I suspect we'll be talking about this for years to come.
To appease the Almighty Deity HOR-TON, I will use these posts to discuss the franchises place in Canadian culture and future in American culture. But I will not mediate on this any more for now.
I will say that I have bought seven cups of coffee from them this week and have gone 0 for 7 (for some reason this promotion occasionally causes me to buy more then my usual one coffee a day).
So, this has nothing to do with the conversation FUCK IT! I need to excise the donut demons somehow.
But here in Canada it is "Roll up the Rim" time at Tim Horton's. The idea is that if you buy a coffee, you get to roll up the little top fold and you can win something (usually a coffee or donut). Now, it is a fairly normal occurrence to win. This promotion started on Tuesday (I believe) and our local Tim Horton's has already given away 178 "prizes". My fiancee has already won.
I, on the other hand, have not won anything in two years. This is completely inexplicable, but I'm going to use this blog to track how many cups of coffee I go before actually winning something. If this blog post is in fact a jinx, then you will never hear of this again. If, as I suspect, this is a grand Tim Horton's conspiracy against me for not talking up their American franchises enough then I suspect we'll be talking about this for years to come.
To appease the Almighty Deity HOR-TON, I will use these posts to discuss the franchises place in Canadian culture and future in American culture. But I will not mediate on this any more for now.
I will say that I have bought seven cups of coffee from them this week and have gone 0 for 7 (for some reason this promotion occasionally causes me to buy more then my usual one coffee a day).
So, this has nothing to do with the conversation FUCK IT! I need to excise the donut demons somehow.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Logistics of Turnout (and a small reference to Bobby Jindal's hilarious response to Obama's non-state of the union)
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Choice?
Hey! We got another comment! Sweet. I responded to it in the comment section, but this post may offer a better understanding of why we were having a discussion about the possibility of a third party. (Hopefully, fingers crossed)
The discussion last week got me thinking about the two-party system we have here in America. I find it a bit odd that a country of roughly 300 million people can leave itself with just two options in elections. Certainly there are a handful of rogue parties that occasionally get someone onto a ballot, and every now and again an independent gets on a ballot (And there is always Ross Perot to remember), but for the majority of elections, be it a presidential election or a lesser election, there are only two choices: red or blue.
There are many problems I have with this system. However, my main concern is the effect that a current system has on voter turnout. The two-party system (especially in the age of instant media) stymies political activism. Voter turnout has never been great in the US, this much we know, but why?
So let's look at some data:
Check out this list.
Our highest voter turnout was 81.8, and it was in 1876. From about 1840 until 1900 we were doing pretty decently, averaging in the 70's for voter turnout. Then something happened. Between 1840-1900 we had a voter turnout in the 60's one time, and it was 69.6 in 1862. In 1904 and 08 we were at 65%. 1912: 58.8. 1916: 61.6. 1920: 49.2. 1924: 48.9. So what was happening when this decline began? I mean we had a real good run there for 60 years, and then something happened. There are two things to note, the right to vote was extended to women and we really started reaping the benefits of industrialization. We have not cracked the 64% mark since 1908. Even with Obama this year we only turned out 56%.
I am sure that the sheer increase in potential voters added to the drop in 1920, but it still seems very strange to me that we have not rebounded back into the 70's for voter turnout rates since the turn of the century. I think you can place blame on a lot of the new inventions and culture trends that came about after 1900, like the radio and television, the car, the steel industry, etc. However, in our current culture it is very easy to access information and form a political consciousness. There are myriad ways that one can come to understand his or her government better. So if it is easier to get at, and we assume that most people want to know what they are talking about when it comes to political issues, why are we entrenched in these absurdly low turnout rates? Even in the last election turnout was not great. And in that election we had a failing economy and an incredibly inspiring candidate (Well, I guess voter turnout was only a little higher during the great depression, even when the system is sucking people's money up they can't get out there and vote). These numbers are also only applicable to presidential elections, the numbers for Senate and Congressional elections is even lower, and those government seats are much closer in proximity to the people in terms of effective representation than most presidential candidates (that's not really as knock on presidents, they have an entire country to try and represent).
I believe you can attribute some of the lack in political activism and acumen for the average american to the two-party system we have here. Perhaps the model of the two-party system isn't awful, but when used to govern over 300 million people at the same time it stifles the drive for the average citizen to give a shit about their political beliefs. It does this in three ways: 1) The adversarial two party american system promotes and rewards (socially) loyalty instead of open-mindedness, 2) the system tacitly fosters the idea that "winning" is more important than doing what is right (this is created partly by the onus on loyalty and partly by the competitive nature of our culture at large), and 3) the system leads people to be mildly aware of political issues they vote for, but doesn't require them to understand their point of view, or their vote, beyond the party label.
1. Because we are such a culturally competitive country I feel as if it is very hard to properly form a viable political point of view. For example, if someone is reaised in NY or in Alabama they are most likely going to be raised as a Democrat and a Republican, respectively. By the time they can vote there political "views" are inextricably linked up with there geography. Changing their mind, or giving the other side of the debate a charitable voice, would mean that they were doing a diservice to their political team. These are extremely general terms, but with 300 million people I think it is safe to say that most of them "decide" where they are politically aligned quite early, and loyalty to the party is rarely questioned. A manifestation of this (loyalty replacing political awareness) comes in the voting booth. Many people go into the voting booth knowing that they are going to vote for their top dog (whoever that is) and then they vote down the party lines for the rest of the people on the ballot. Many of these people they have not even heard of, and they know nothing about their politics. But they vote for them blindly. This is a wild phenomenom.
more on 2 and 3 later, the grind of work calls.
The discussion last week got me thinking about the two-party system we have here in America. I find it a bit odd that a country of roughly 300 million people can leave itself with just two options in elections. Certainly there are a handful of rogue parties that occasionally get someone onto a ballot, and every now and again an independent gets on a ballot (And there is always Ross Perot to remember), but for the majority of elections, be it a presidential election or a lesser election, there are only two choices: red or blue.
There are many problems I have with this system. However, my main concern is the effect that a current system has on voter turnout. The two-party system (especially in the age of instant media) stymies political activism. Voter turnout has never been great in the US, this much we know, but why?
So let's look at some data:
Check out this list.
Our highest voter turnout was 81.8, and it was in 1876. From about 1840 until 1900 we were doing pretty decently, averaging in the 70's for voter turnout. Then something happened. Between 1840-1900 we had a voter turnout in the 60's one time, and it was 69.6 in 1862. In 1904 and 08 we were at 65%. 1912: 58.8. 1916: 61.6. 1920: 49.2. 1924: 48.9. So what was happening when this decline began? I mean we had a real good run there for 60 years, and then something happened. There are two things to note, the right to vote was extended to women and we really started reaping the benefits of industrialization. We have not cracked the 64% mark since 1908. Even with Obama this year we only turned out 56%.
I am sure that the sheer increase in potential voters added to the drop in 1920, but it still seems very strange to me that we have not rebounded back into the 70's for voter turnout rates since the turn of the century. I think you can place blame on a lot of the new inventions and culture trends that came about after 1900, like the radio and television, the car, the steel industry, etc. However, in our current culture it is very easy to access information and form a political consciousness. There are myriad ways that one can come to understand his or her government better. So if it is easier to get at, and we assume that most people want to know what they are talking about when it comes to political issues, why are we entrenched in these absurdly low turnout rates? Even in the last election turnout was not great. And in that election we had a failing economy and an incredibly inspiring candidate (Well, I guess voter turnout was only a little higher during the great depression, even when the system is sucking people's money up they can't get out there and vote). These numbers are also only applicable to presidential elections, the numbers for Senate and Congressional elections is even lower, and those government seats are much closer in proximity to the people in terms of effective representation than most presidential candidates (that's not really as knock on presidents, they have an entire country to try and represent).
I believe you can attribute some of the lack in political activism and acumen for the average american to the two-party system we have here. Perhaps the model of the two-party system isn't awful, but when used to govern over 300 million people at the same time it stifles the drive for the average citizen to give a shit about their political beliefs. It does this in three ways: 1) The adversarial two party american system promotes and rewards (socially) loyalty instead of open-mindedness, 2) the system tacitly fosters the idea that "winning" is more important than doing what is right (this is created partly by the onus on loyalty and partly by the competitive nature of our culture at large), and 3) the system leads people to be mildly aware of political issues they vote for, but doesn't require them to understand their point of view, or their vote, beyond the party label.
1. Because we are such a culturally competitive country I feel as if it is very hard to properly form a viable political point of view. For example, if someone is reaised in NY or in Alabama they are most likely going to be raised as a Democrat and a Republican, respectively. By the time they can vote there political "views" are inextricably linked up with there geography. Changing their mind, or giving the other side of the debate a charitable voice, would mean that they were doing a diservice to their political team. These are extremely general terms, but with 300 million people I think it is safe to say that most of them "decide" where they are politically aligned quite early, and loyalty to the party is rarely questioned. A manifestation of this (loyalty replacing political awareness) comes in the voting booth. Many people go into the voting booth knowing that they are going to vote for their top dog (whoever that is) and then they vote down the party lines for the rest of the people on the ballot. Many of these people they have not even heard of, and they know nothing about their politics. But they vote for them blindly. This is a wild phenomenom.
more on 2 and 3 later, the grind of work calls.
Monday, February 23, 2009
This week...
So I think it is prudent to keep this discussion going for a little bit longer, but I want to shift the focus. I will be posting either later tonight or tomorrow on the highs and lows of the two-party system we have here in america.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)