In Quebec recently, there was a provincial election and the three candidates split almost exactly one third of the votes each. When I asked a friend his take on it, he replied that it meant that the voters were really saying none of the above. In Quebec, the government will have to hold a new election if the other two parties fail to support them on certain key issues like budget votes, so my best guess is that there will be another election within a year or two. In France they elected socialists in all three houses with a weak majority in the presidency but are now mighty unhappy in the opinion polls. In Greece it seems they just keep throwing the dice until a group forms a government for as long as it lasts. I am sure there are many more examples in the world today. There is a flaw in democracy that if 51% of a bitterly contested election wins, then 49% lose. There is no appeal in some countries. At a time when concensus is needed, elections can breed disharmony. For over three decades I have suggested that governments should put a category for none-of-the-above-candidates on the ballot to keep the politicians more honest and hopefully more humble. Usually I just get a chuckle and agreement no matter what side of the political spectrum I am talking to. I looked today at the US race polls and see parallels. Does the extremely close poll results mean that the voters are really saying none of the above? What happens then?
I think the political agendas are dated. They are all about left or right wing or liberal. People aren't interested in left or right wing now and liberal is pretty much what we have any way so it is kind of a no vote. The majority of people just want economic competence which is the one thing no one is offering. The same thing occurs in economics depending on what strategy is chosen one group of people benefit over others. Rather than people choosing left or right wing due to political agenda it is more of how they benefit financially personally. I think this why things are so split. They vote for their social groups benefit rather than progressive improvement for every one. This is something I noticed trying to solve the problems in the economy. All of the think tanks are trying to push their agenda to get power to push money in their direction. They don't care about helping people just getting things for themselves. The problem is if you don't help other people you will get burnt because one man's loan is another man's savings, if the borrower can't pay the lender gets burnt. At the end of the day it is the borrower who takes the brunt of responsibility they have to work to pay off the debt while the lender jets to spend it. It will be the borrower that gets blamed but the lender should not have of lent it to them. I guess it is all about how one group of people live off other people.
Rather than people choosing left or right wing due to political agenda it is more of how they benefit financially personally. I think this why things are so split. They vote for their social groups benefit rather than progressive improvement for every one. ----------------------------------- You nailed it. I just can't vote for anyone who I think is a rotten crook but that doesn't seem to be a problem for many Americans.
WIN stands for Work Is Nonprofit! People are looking around at how the parasites live and deciding to join them. Parasites have free time, medical, etc... The thing is the Petrodollar thingy is unraveling. Inflation is going to come and it's going to eat the parasite's lunch. It's going to be bad, it's going to last for years...