Do girls have an interest in politics?

[ItBurnsWhenIpee]

My girlfriend knows a little about politics now cause she's dating me, but I've never met a woman under 30 who had any interest in politics. Have you?

Typical of girls I know: "Bush is probably gonna win cause he caught Saddam Hussein. Weren't we trying to catch him for a long time?"

[smack]

the girl i'm currently dating was real interested in politics before we met. and a coupld other of my buddy's girlfriends are.

seems like just a handful though. but that's about the same anywhere. just a handful of people are informed and interested.

[Goatse]

Women generally have an extremely poor grasp of the political world. They tend to be lemmings who follow their emotions instead of reason. Just walk around a college campus and notice the number of Che Guevara shirts. Of course, they don't understand that Che was a mass murdering maniac with an ego the size of Texas; they think he was good looking, they heard he fought for so-called equality, so they love him. No reason, just emotion.

[kmanrox]

good point goatse

[Libertine]

Originally posted by Goatse
Women generally have an extremely poor grasp of the political world. They tend to be lemmings who follow their emotions instead of reason. Just walk around a college campus and notice the number of Che Guevara shirts. Of course, they don't understand that Che was a mass murdering maniac with an ego the size of Texas; they think he was good looking, they heard he fought for so-called equality, so they love him. No reason, just emotion.

Substitute "women" with "people", and it still holds true.

[theFeTiShLaDy]

some women are interested in politics and some are not because of bad experiences or political instability of one's country.

[Goatse]

Originally posted by punkworld
Substitute "women" with "people", and it still holds true.

Yes, it holds true for 98% of men and nearly 100% of women. The point is simply that some intelligent men are occasionally capable of independant, logical thought. Even the most intelligent, educated woman is a giant ball of emotions who will choose what feels good instead of truth and logic.

[Libertine]

Originally posted by Goatse
Yes, it holds true for 98% of men and nearly 100% of women. The point is simply that some intelligent men are occasionally capable of independant, logical thought. Even the most intelligent, educated woman is a giant ball of emotions who will choose what feels good instead of truth and logic.

Sorry, but what you're saying isn't true. Maybe your view is skewed because of biases in your upbringing, or maybe you just don't know the right women, but you're wrong here.

Also, you should realize that logic dictates that there is no objective truth that we are able to know when it comes to normative judgements. Obviously, normative judgements are a huge part of politics, so it's impossible to take an approach of "truth and logic" to politics. Everyone tries to, but in the end aesthetic/emotional factors always play a huge role in politics.

[slavdogg]

my ex was a Poli Sci major
we talked about Politics all the time, thats probably why we started dating.

she also worked for a US Senetor and wanted to be a senetor.

[kristin]

I'm not going to get all feminist on you because that's not who I am ... but not all girls are like that. Dumb girls, yes ... a friend of mine and I have serious political talks daily. We both have a lot of interest in this coming up campaign, I remember staying up until 3a watching the news on the last campaign. We're not nerds or anything, just normal girls. So don't say "generally women have an extemely poor grasp of the political world."

[Libertine]

Originally posted by kristin
I'm not going to get all feminist on you because that's not who I am ... but not all girls are like that. Dumb girls, yes ... a friend of mine and I have serious political talks daily. We both have a lot of interest in this coming up campaign, I remember staying up until 3a watching the news on the last campaign. We're not nerds or anything, just normal girls. So don't say "generally women have an extemely poor grasp of the political world."

Not to be an asshole or anything, but merely watching news does not give you a good grasp of the political world. At the very least you need to have spent a fair amount of time studying contemporary political theory.

[gangbangjoe]

sure they have

look at monica levinski

[Dead13]

Originally posted by ItBurnsWhenIpee
My girlfriend knows a little about politics now cause she's dating me, but I've never met a woman under 30 who had any interest in politics. Have you?

Typical of girls I know: "Bush is probably gonna win cause he caught Saddam Hussein. Weren't we trying to catch him for a long time?"

I simply do not see how someone who created a thread about the fact that they will not vote in this election can turn around and continue to start threads on politics.

Dude, if you don't vote then keep your trap shut!

[Pleasurepays]

typically, a womens interest in politics is in direct proportion to her attractiveness. Hot girls are never interested in politics. They don't have to care about anything but fucking, shopping, hair and what color their convertable is.

Ugly girls typically have the most opinions and are the most uppity. How many hot chicks do you see at the average political protest?

<there are exceptions of course>

[Tala]

Originally posted by Dead13
I simply do not see how someone who created a thread about the fact that they will not vote in this election can turn around and continue to start threads on politics.

Dude, if you don't vote then keep your trap shut!

Yes, I have an interest in politics. Enough to have done some research, and enough research to realize that the two party system sucks fat balls.

("sucks fat balls" being the technical term)

[Dead13]

Originally posted by Tala


Yes, I have an interest in politics. Enough to have done some research, and enough research to realize that the two party system sucks fat balls.

("sucks fat balls" being the technical term)

Maybe you should research a ballot and see that there are more than 8 parties running for president on most states ballots. If this was only a two party system they sure fooled the hell out of me. Seems to me you can vote for whomever you like.

And I'll say the same as I have before, any political group that is incapable of creating a mass campaign and gather the money to get national attention is simply NOT CAPABLE of being the President of the United States.

Or maybe you would rather be in Canada where the hated Liberal party continues to tear down the country with only 25% of the vote, because that is what happens when more than 2 parties are involved.

The only thing 3rd parties are good for is keeping important issues on the table that the other two parties would assume ignore. But until they start acting like real presidential canidates and stop acting like student protestors they will never be taken seriously in this country.

[Libertine]

Originally posted by Dead13
Maybe you should research a ballot and see that there are more than 8 parties running for president on most states ballots. If this was only a two party system they sure fooled the hell out of me. Seems to me you can vote for whomever you like.

And I'll say the same as I have before, any political group that is incapable of creating a mass campaign and gather the money to get national attention is simply NOT CAPABLE of being the President of the United States.

Or maybe you would rather be in Canada where the hated Liberal party continues to tear down the country with only 25% of the vote, because that is what happens when more than 2 parties are involved.

The only thing 3rd parties are good for is keeping important issues on the table that the other two parties would assume ignore. But until they start acting like real presidential canidates and stop acting like student protestors they will never be taken seriously in this country.

Do you actually believe that the American electoral system is a good one?

[LadyMischief]

I'm under 30 and very interested in politics.

[Dead13]

Originally posted by punkworld
Do you actually believe that the American electoral system is a good one?

No I do not. Needs serious overhauling. It no longer fits our needs as a country and because of the way we have changed with the times its core philosophy is seriously flawed.

I would agree with you if you are saying we need to change it.

[Libertine]

Originally posted by Dead13
No I do not. Needs serious overhauling. It no longer fits our needs as a country and because of the way we have changed with the times its core philosophy is seriously flawed.

I would agree with you if you are saying we need to change it.

What alternative would you suggest then?

[Dead13]

Originally posted by punkworld
What alternative would you suggest then?

I think it would be sufficient to simply allow the popular vote to count. If a majority of American's vote for someone, that candidate should be the winner.

[Sarah_Jayne]

I have ovaries and a honours degree in polictical science.

[Libertine]

Originally posted by Dead13
I think it would be sufficient to simply allow the popular vote to count. If a majority of American's vote for someone, that candidate should be the winner.

Hmm. I wouldn't exactly call that "serious overhauling". It still leaves some of the main problems of the current system, such as the government necessarily only representing a small percentage of the population in any specific issue and elections being based more on image than on substance.

[Dead13]

Originally posted by punkworld
Hmm. I wouldn't exactly call that "serious overhauling". It still leaves some of the main problems of the current system, such as the government necessarily only representing a small percentage of the population in any specific issue and elections being based more on image than on substance.

Then what is YOUR solution?

[Libertine]

Originally posted by Dead13
Then what is YOUR solution?

Replace the House of Reps with a nationwide parliamentary system, keep the Senate and combine elections for the President with the parliamentary elections.
The parliament decides on a Cabinet that represents the executive branch of government, and is headed by the President.

[Dead13]

Originally posted by punkworld
Replace the House of Reps with a nationwide parliamentary system, keep the Senate and combine elections for the President with the parliamentary elections.
The parliament decides on a Cabinet that represents the executive branch of government, and is headed by the President.

Why don't you just move to Canada then and see how well that works for yourself.

Believe me, its a lot more corrupt than you would think.

[Libertine]

Originally posted by Dead13
Why don't you just move to Canada then and see how well that works for yourself.

Believe me, its a lot more corrupt than you would think.

Ofcourse every system has it's problems. However, the current system in the US essentially ensures that the views of only a few people have an actual influence.,

[C_U_Next_Tuesday]

truth and logic doesnt go with politics

[groark]

Hm.. sure girls have.. in Germany

[Dead13]

Originally posted by punkworld
Ofcourse every system has it's problems. However, the current system in the US essentially ensures that the views of only a few people have an actual influence.,

I do not see how that is true. Although I can't prove or disprove that theory so you may very well be right.

However, I can assure you that the system you mentioned previously ensures that only a small percentage of the people are represented, as the way it works currently in Canada proves. The minority have absolutly no say in any matters and are usually shut out or shouted down if they even try to do so. The majority leaders are even so cockey about it, they have no problem laughing them off in public and admitting how corrupt they are because there is nothing to stop them.

I agree with you that no system is perfect, and in America we have our fair share of flaws to deal with. However, I still think its the best system by far.

In any matter, I cannot agree on any system that does not allow its people to directly select its leader. I believe that is very important.

[Rich]

Dead13, what's so horribly wrong about the Canadian political system in your eyes? You realize that unlike the USA we still have a free press and parties that represent everyone, not just corporations. I'd say we're in a hell of a lot better shape than the US as far as our election process goes. Also I wouldn't call the liberal party "hated".

[Libertine]

Originally posted by Dead13
I do not see how that is true. Although I can't prove or disprove that theory so you may very well be right.

It's very simple, really. In "winner takes all"-elections, only the views of the winner have an influence, and only a very limited amount of people/parties are a viable choice.

Because only a very limited amount of people/parties can be considered a viable choice, people are forced to band together in really large groups which don't agree on most issues, so they have to vote on these things themselves.

So, the outcome of elections is based on the biggest group (dem/rep candidate with the most support) of the biggest group (pres candidate with the most support).

Let's say that 60% of all democrat voters actually agree with Kerry (instead of Dean, Clark, etc), and that 50% of voters vote for him. That would mean he wins with a whopping 30% of people really on his side.

But let's not forget that there are far more issues than elections. That means that the only thing that counts is the most popular combination of views. However, if there are very few parties, that's a huge limitation - in the US right now "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" isn't a choice.

70% of voters may be fiscally conservative, but someone who's fiscally liberal can win based on other issues or even based on the "negative vote", i.e. people not wanting the other guy to win. There's something seriously fucked about that.

Originally posted by Dead13
However, I can assure you that the system you mentioned previously ensures that only a small percentage of the people are represented, as the way it works currently in Canada proves. The minority have absolutly no say in any matters and are usually shut out or shouted down if they even try to do so. The majority leaders are even so cockey about it, they have no problem laughing them off in public and admitting how corrupt they are because there is nothing to stop them.

I have no idea whatsoever about Canada and it's politics, so I can't really comment on that.

However, I can say that in a well-executed parliamentary system, on most issues the positions that determine the actual decisions necessarily have to be backed by the majority of people.
Perhaps even more important, the minority always gets a voice in parliament. In the US, on the other hand, the minority (libertarian voters, green party voters) get no official voice whatsoever.

Originally posted by Dead13
I agree with you that no system is perfect, and in America we have our fair share of flaws to deal with. However, I still think its the best system by far.

Why? Why do you consider the actual system to be superior? What makes it better than a parliamentary system?

Originally posted by Dead13
In any matter, I cannot agree on any system that does not allow its people to directly select its leader. I believe that is very important.

In the system I spoke about, the leader is directly elected by the people. However, he isn't all-powerful in the executive branch of the government, but rather has to share his power with those representing a majority of the people.

[Nas7782]

Tis' true that the American electral process isn't fully efficient. However, the system for the most part saves time. The average Americans do not invest time in politics and their knowledge are based on a few corporate news. It's understandable if they're trying to pay for health insurance and college tuitions for their children by working long hours. There is simply not enough time to research politics, but to get it from sound bites on t.v.

The party platform also saves time. Voters may not like George Bush or John Kerry, but they'll likely vote for the candidate base on party platform.

Also, gridlock in Washington happens more and more. If the two party has problem with gridlock, imagine a 3 or more party system. Nothing will be able to pass.


The electoral college was suppose to prevent the tyranny of the majority according to the framers of the constitution, specifically James Madison. For reasons that can be debatable, the forefathers were landowners, and they did not want that right stripped by the majority. In essence, they do not trust the majority of people to decide, which some believe back fired during the Bush-Gore fiasco. That case was decided by a narrow majority member in the Supreme Court. History will judge whether the court made the right decision. Usually, the Supreme Court avoid any case involving politics as non justiciable. I was surprise they took the Gore-Bush case instead of leaving it to the state court.

[Pleasurepays]

Originally posted by punkworld
[B]It's very simple, really. In "winner takes all"-elections, only the views of the winner have an influence, and only a very limited amount of people/parties are a viable choice.

Because only a very limited amount of people/parties can be considered a viable choice, people are forced to band together in really large groups which don't agree on most issues, so they have to vote on these things themselves.

This is a good idea in theory, but Russia ended up having over 50 parties with presidential candidates by the second election and the reality was that NO candidate was even close to representing the majority view on any issue. In the end, they had to severely limit the total number of political parties. Some represented the dying military. Some represented Communism. Some represented the idea of social reforms. Some represented Labor unions and the list goes on and on.

In this scenario, the "biggest group" with "the most support" could actually be representing a very small minority of people in the country.

It was not possible or realistic for people to know where each candidate stood on any issue because it would be mathematically unrealistic. I think that is a primary reason for the political polarization that almost all countries see and why everything settles into similar points of equilibrium - 1-3 parties that have a chance.... and the rest that don't.

If a system like that were to happen, the questions would then have to be... how long would it take for number parties to dwindle down and die to a limited few, before it would make sense. would they? And if that happened... would you have more than 2-3 parties such as we do now and if so, what was the point in the first place.

People can safely stand behind a party, knowing how that party stands on all issues and have the security of knowing that they agree with 90% of what that party stands for regardless of the candidate.

- anyway, i just wanted to point that out... not really wanting to be drawn into a protracted debate on political theory and practise.

[stocktrader23]

Require everyone to vote!

[axelcat]

some girls do, I knew a couple a long while back that were heavily in to it

[Kassidy]

It's not just women under 30, it's everyone under 30. Until people are finished with college and begin to start careers and families, all they care about is drinking and fucking. Until people mature in their views of the world and begin to see how their country's politics effect them personally, they won't give a shit.

[Libertine]

Originally posted by Pleasurepays
This is a good idea in theory, but Russia ended up having over 50 parties with presidential candidates by the second election and the reality was that NO candidate was even close to representing the majority view on any issue. In the end, they had to severely limit the total number of political parties. Some represented the dying military. Some represented Communism. Some represented the idea of social reforms. Some represented Labor unions and the list goes on and on.

In this scenario, the "biggest group" with "the most support" could actually be representing a very small minority of people in the country.

It was not possible or realistic for people to know where each candidate stood on any issue because it would be mathematically unrealistic. I think that is a primary reason for the political polarization that almost all countries see and why everything settles into similar points of equilibrium - 1-3 parties that have a chance.... and the rest that don't.

If a system like that were to happen, the questions would then have to be... how long would it take for number parties to dwindle down and die to a limited few, before it would make sense. would they? And if that happened... would you have more than 2-3 parties such as we do now and if so, what was the point in the first place.

People can safely stand behind a party, knowing how that party stands on all issues and have the security of knowing that they agree with 90% of what that party stands for regardless of the candidate.

- anyway, i just wanted to point that out... not really wanting to be drawn into a protracted debate on political theory and practise.

Ehm... loads of countries in Europe are using a somewhat similar system rather successfully, and you want to make the comparison to Russia, a country which has only known democracy for a few years yet?

Besides, an electoral threshold will solve the problem of too many small parties quite easily... as it has in just about every western country.

Also, you're missing the main advantage of the system I'm talking about. A party does not need to "have a chance of winning" to be a viable option. One can vote for a party which will get only 10% of all votes, and that party will get 10% of the seats in parliament.
About 4-6 parties can easily exist, and new parties with new ideas have an actual chance of gaining a foothold.

[Lucy]

I am 23 and I am really interested in politics, getting ready for my exam at Law university, so have to learn a lots of history and current politic situation in almost each country and honestly I really enjoy it....

[CamChicks]

I also believe it would be beneficial if the USA reformed its political system the way many other democracys have, to allow multi-party involvement. No vote should be wasted.

Imagine how much better off we'd be if all the economic conservatives could vote for smaller government without simultaneously proping up the religious right!

I have been researching New Zealands political system, supposedly modeled off Germanys (tho I have not read much of about theirs). Here's a link to their official explaination: http://www.elections.org.nz/election...ovt_elect.html


"Parliamentarians are elected under a mixed-member proportional representation system. In the most recent general elections, held in July 2002, the Labor Party won 52 of 120 parliamentary seats and formed a minority government with the Progressive Coalition Party (2 seats), with support from the centrist United Future Party (8 seats); Helen Clark remained Prime Minister. The Labor Party also had a cooperation agreement with the Green Party (9 seats). Three other political parties were represented in Parliament: The National Party (27 seats), New Zealand First (13 seats), and the ACT party (8 seats)."

[ItBurnsWhenIpee]

Originally posted by Dead13
I simply do not see how someone who created a thread about the fact that they will not vote in this election can turn around and continue to start threads on politics.

Dude, if you don't vote then keep your trap shut!

Well, for the record, I only said I might not vote, and it's because my vote will be useless due to the electoral college system. I was more just making a point about that system, and the reality is that I'm sure I will vote. Especially because there are other things in this state that I need to vote for where my vote will mean something.

[Dead13]

Originally posted by ItBurnsWhenIpee
Well, for the record, I only said I might not vote, and it's because my vote will be useless due to the electoral college system. I was more just making a point about that system, and the reality is that I'm sure I will vote. Especially because there are other things in this state that I need to vote for where my vote will mean something.

Good going man. It doesn't matter what or who your voting for, as long as you are voting is all that matters.

[media]

Only about 40% of women in the US vote. Thats pretty sad...

It's even sadder that the majority of voters are 40-60 years old

[SpikeHeel]

some girls do have interest in pollitics..they like to get involve in a discussion where people, administration and other stuff.

[Allison]

Originally posted by smack
the girl i'm currently dating was real interested in politics before we met. and a coupld other of my buddy's girlfriends are.

seems like just a handful though. but that's about the same anywhere. just a handful of people are informed and interested.

I agree, I think you'd find just as many women as men with lack of interest in politics. Most of the women I know are pretty informed.

~Alli

[reynold]

i believe politics is evetybody's concern. the kind of politics we have is also the kind of country we may have. sometimes we have to care on this matter. its our concern.

[SleazyDream]

idiot

[wdsguy]

I would think so. Half of the class of my usual poly sci class at my university is female

[WickedVenus]

Originally posted by punkworld
Substitute "women" with "people", and it still holds true.

Thank you! People saying that women have no grasp on politics, are being sexist. Just because some women dont know crap, doesnt mean that none of them know crap.

I could say the same about men, but it wouldnt be true.

It just an indivdual thing not a women or man thing.

The problem is the women your hanging out with.

and men alwasy ask themselves... "which is better brains or beauty?"
I think you know your answer now.