vote for Obama with McCain's policies?

[Death from the Sea]

so Howard Stern sent one of his lackeys out to the street to interview people about how they are voting and pulled a fast one on the people being interviewed, they would name McCain policies and VP candidate and say they are Obama's and everyone agreed with it!

people are dumb


which makes me wonder..... what if we revamped the voting criteria, to where instead of voting for a person, we voted on policy. By that I mean, we don't list names on the ballot, just the major policies that are predominantly at hand and have people select what they like the best, and each candidate is attached to one side or the other... the one that matches up the most wins. That way you have to have some kind of idea of what you are voting for...

if that idea does not make any sense tell me so I can try to explain it better.

[ArcturusMengsk]

I'm glad to see that we're using Howard Stern as a legitimate source of information and not regarding him as a right-wing shock jock anymore.

[chr335]

I'm glad to see that we're using Howard Stern as a legitimate source of information and not regarding him as a right-wing shock jock anymore.

I didn't think many considered Howard Stern to be right-wing but then I have never heard Howard Stern talk about his political leanings

[ArcturusMengsk]

I'm glad to see that we're using Howard Stern as a legitimate source of information and not regarding him as a right-wing shock jock anymore.

I didn't think many considered Howard Stern to be right-wing but then I have never heard Howard Stern talk about his political leanings

He's a lolbertarian.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I'm glad to see that we're using Howard Stern as a legitimate source of information and not regarding him as a right-wing shock jock anymore.

So, are you saying that you find this hard to believe?

This is believable to me. There are a lot of people out there who can't be bothered to know what policies each canidate has laid out. Instead, they end up voting for who their family/friend/church/political party is voting for.

[ArcturusMengsk]

I'm glad to see that we're using Howard Stern as a legitimate source of information and not regarding him as a right-wing shock jock anymore.

So, are you saying that you find this hard to believe?

No, not at all. Most voters, in fact, vote either because of some tribalistic party affiliation or against the party presently in power. What I contest is the context in which Stern did his little stunt, which was to target black voters especially in a thinly-veiled attempt to stir up some sort of 'reverse racism' accusation against Obama's African-American supporters (this despite the fact that African-Americans have voted in numbers greater than eighty percent for Democrats for over two decades).

[Darth Wong]

I'm glad to see that we're using Howard Stern as a legitimate source of information and not regarding him as a right-wing shock jock anymore.

I didn't think many considered Howard Stern to be right-wing but then I have never heard Howard Stern talk about his political leanings

He's anti-Bush, but frankly I think that's just because he hates the FCC and the Bush Administration's religious pro-censorship agenda. Pure self-interest, in other words. The same is probably true for his economic attitudes, since he is a rich guy and so would prefer pro-wealthy policies in place. In terms of foreign policy, you could replace him with any Southern redneck and not notice the difference.

[Darth Wong]

This is believable to me. There are a lot of people out there who can't be bothered to know what policies each canidate has laid out. Instead, they end up voting for who their family/friend/church/political party is voting for.

To be honest, even if both candidates had exactly the same stated policies, I would vote for Obama. Looking at their respective histories, we're talking about a well-educated professor and his highly knowledgeable and experienced running mate versus The Low-IQ Couple: a hot-tempered bottom-of-the-class retard and his psychotic fundie bimbo running mate, both of whom wear anti-intellectualism on their sleeves. One votes not just for campaign promises (whatever they're actually worth) but for a perception of the candidate's judgment in whatever future situations might come up.

[Adrian Laguna]

so Howard Stern sent one of his lackeys out to the street to interview people about how they are voting and pulled a fast one on the people being interviewed, they would name McCain policies and VP candidate and say they are Obama's and everyone agreed with it!

Wrong, everyone who was interviewed and made it past the editing room agreed. We don't know what proportion of people noticed the mistakes and were edited out. On top of that, Harlem is a lower class area, you could probably successfully pull the opposite trick in some redneck rural backwood.

Also, few blacks are voting for Obama because he is Black, as Stern suggests, they are supporting Obama because he is the Democratic candidate. Blacks have been supporting Democrats in overwhelming numbers since the 60s. I note that Hillary Clinton's support among black people was higher than Obama's at the beginning of the primaries. But hey, can't let facts get in the way of the show, right?

[Qwerty 42]

which makes me wonder..... what if we revamped the voting criteria, to where instead of voting for a person, we voted on policy. By that I mean, we don't list names on the ballot, just the major policies that are predominantly at hand and have people select what they like the best, and each candidate is attached to one side or the other... the one that matches up the most wins. That way you have to have some kind of idea of what you are voting for...

I doubt that this would be a good idea: there are some policies which are far more critical to an individual than others. For instance, Obama's position on civil liberties is one of the predominant reasons for my choosing him over McCain, even though I may agree with McCain on other points which I consider to be less important.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that someone highly educated on both candidates goes to the polling booth in your scenario. To them, gay rights is the be-all and end-all of political agenda. This would incline them to vote Obama in the current system, as well it should. Let's say that he does favor McCain on Energy and the Iraq War, again, purely for argument's sake. In your system, he would tick off McCain for those two points, and give McCain the ballot (assuming, for argument's sake, that these were the only points) even though he would be harshly opposed to the idea in the current system. Sure, he could just lie and tick off enough for Obama to give him the ballot, but manipulation in the polling booth seems to me to be undesirable.

[Death from the Sea]

so Howard Stern sent one of his lackeys out to the street to interview people about how they are voting and pulled a fast one on the people being interviewed, they would name McCain policies and VP candidate and say they are Obama's and everyone agreed with it!

Wrong, everyone who was interviewed and made it past the editing room agreed. We don't know what proportion of people noticed the mistakes and were edited out. On top of that, Harlem is a lower class area, you could probably successfully pull the opposite trick in some redneck rural backwood.

you are right. They could have easily edited out those that did correct the discrepancies, in fact the three or four people they played on air could have been the only clueless people they found, but since there are people like this everywhere... I run into them at work everyday.

it is also possible that since they don't know what is going on with the candidates, that they actually won't vote because they don't really care to put out the effort.

[Stargate Nerd]

what if we revamped the voting criteria, to where instead of voting for a person, we voted on policy. By that I mean, we don't list names on the ballot, just the major policies that are predominantly at hand and have people select what they like the best, and each candidate is attached to one side or the other... the one that matches up the most wins. That way you have to have some kind of idea of what you are voting for...

It wouldn't work any better. Last I checked policies and laws are named with nicely formulated euphemisms that either don't have anything to do with the proposed policies or will cause the exact opposite of the supposedly desired results. Republicans are especially guilty of this.

Thus it's called the "Patriot Act" when it should be called the "Slippery Slope to Tyranny Act" or "No Child Left Behind Act" when it should really be called "Let's Destroy the Public School System once and for all Act".