Political platforms and how they control us??

JCricket · #1 02-01-2012, 08:50 AM

Okay folks,
I am stuttering bafoon with two brain cells that constantly argue with eachother, but I had a thought. It took all of my energy to muster it too, so be nice.

To illustrate the thought I'll use abortion on the political platform as an example.

First, the thought, the use of political platforms is actually a way for the politicians to control us - not to tell us where they stand. Why?

Take abortion. The right is pro-life, the left is pro-choice. We argue back and forth with the two parties being more or less deadlocked.

Assumptions:
1. Most republicans are pro life, but not all. For this example lets ASSUME 80% are pro life, 20% are not.
2. Inversley, most democrats are pro-choice but not all. Lets ASSUME 30% are pro-life.
3. Also assume that both parties are equal in size(number of people in each party).

If you add the percentages up and divide it by two, you find that 55% of the voters would then be prolife. The majority of the voters. Hmm.............

If this was not part of either side of the political platform, but an issue that was decided by majority vote, what would happen?

Obviously those numbers are assumptions. I did arrive at them by taking a mental poll of my friends and family and where they stood.

So the point is, if many issues were not put on a political platform, we would find ourselves much less divided and probably much more in control of he politicians.

Thoughts??

d-ray657 · #2 02-01-2012, 09:15 AM

In politics it's a red meat issue; in real life, it's more nuanced.

An absolute ban on abortion is not a matter that can be decided politically, because it has already been ruled to be part of our constitutional right to privacy. The most committed anti-abortion politicians promise to appoint judicial activists who will overturn the existing precedent (notice that I didn't say judicial conservatives, who believe in stare decisis)

There are also tons of issues that get thrown into the abortion debate. The most extreme would want to ban contraception, the morning-after pill, and any justification for the medical procedure of abortion, including rape and the mother's health. Stem-cell research becomes part of the abortion debate; and parental consent; and licensing; and on and on in efforts to make abortion more difficult. The polling for and against shifts when all of the other factors are considered.

The same is true of regulation. Lots of politicians claim to be anti-regulation, but when you pin them down, there are still plenty of areas that they would agree need to be regulated.

A good column appeared in the Wapo the other day about the political climate that makes "it depends" an unacceptable answer, when it is really the only way to fully consider a problem. In the practice of law, there are very few questions that I would not answer with "it depends."

Regards,

D-Ray

JCricket · #3 02-01-2012, 09:32 AM

Hey D-ray,
Maybe I should have used something different than abortion to illustrate. I certainly agree with your post on abortion. My point was how the numbers would shake out f it wasn't on the platforms. It might really change how things are handled.

But I guess that would depend.........

Mark

BTW - that artice you gave a link to was excellent!!

merrylander · #4 02-01-2012, 10:08 AM

If Roe v Wade was to go to a referendum they only women should be allowed to vote.

d-ray657 · #5 02-01-2012, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCricket

Hey D-ray,
Maybe I should have used something different than abortion to illustrate. I certainly agree with your post on abortion. My point was how the numbers would shake out f it wasn't on the platforms. It might really change how things are handled.

But I guess that would depend.........

Mark

BTW - that artice you gave a link to was excellent!!

I get your point and I agree with it. Both parties have come to expect a certain amount of orthodoxy - acceptance of a mixed bag of political positions. The GOP is more disciplined/dictatorial in enforcing allegiance to the party line. Someone like Ron Paul does something to break out of that orthodoxy, but he is crazy on so many things that he could never get anything done.

Regards,

D-Ray

JCricket · #6 02-01-2012, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merrylander

If Roe v Wade was to go to a referendum they only women should be allowed to vote.

Why?
Curious as to how you justify this?

Oerets · #7 02-01-2012, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCricket

Why?
Curious as to how you justify this?

Can tell you why I feel the same way, Women can get pregnant where I a man will never. Knowing well how I now feel about abortion might change if faced with the possibility of being pregnant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by merrylander

If Roe v Wade was to go to a referendum they only women should be allowed to vote.

Barney

JCricket · #8 02-01-2012, 05:11 PM

okay, I can go with that.

I still think a man should have some say when a women is carrying his child, but I certainly would not know how to balance this with the needs of the mother.

Rex E. · #9 02-01-2012, 05:33 PM

Abortion is just something for single issue voters and for politicians to keep us busy and not watching what they are really doing.

Same goes for many things like illegal drugs, immigration...........

Wasillaguy · #10 02-01-2012, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCricket

okay, I can go with that.

I still think a man should have some say when a women is carrying his child, but I certainly would not know how to balance this with the needs of the mother.

I think a man should be prepared to raise a child if he's shooting loads into a woman. I also think the unborn child's right to live trumps the needs and desires of both parents.