Well, your right. He didn't get a popular vote =D

I wonder if Pew has a breakdown of the typology of the voters for that election.

I wonder from what groups of the Republican party and from the voting population as a whole as well, he got the bulk of his support.

I bet it was a lot of the lower class and religious republicans that make up the bulk of support.

Edit: looking back at the tally, gore got about 48% while Bush got about 47.8. Not a tremendous difference. It's rather sad almost half the voting group voted him in back in 2000. Then in 2004, 50% voted in the gimpy monkey again. How bad does that make them look?

If we look at the 2004 election, according to Pew, 86% of the "Staunch Conservative" Category voted for Bush. Over half of these attend church regularly and attend Bible study (43% are evangelical protestants).

Another group is the "pro-government" conservative. About 63% voted for Bush in 2004. This group is highly religious; 59% of them lack any degree beyond high school, which isn't saying much.

Looking at it, in BOTH parties, the well-informed, well-educated, more secular groups seem to be the smallest.

__________________

In many ways, we already have a quasi-democratic process. Are our votes not marginalized by the election system which has the electoral college, super delegates, and a corporate run media? The only place where our votes matter more is at the local level.

I can understand this. However, an uneducated or under educated population aids those in power in a system that operates under a democratic umbrella. Firstly, it reinforces their view that those they rule are too uninformed to make important decisions. Secondly, they use this ignorance to their advantage in pushing through legislation based more upon emotion rather than reason. And since it works well to their advantage, very little is done to change it. For example, more forms of critical thinking could be introduced at the high school level rather than at college. However, at the same time the current system marginalizes people like ourselves who are more informed and politically aware than the average Joe citizen. I would like to see a system where educated and informed citizens have a greater voice in political processes. And where more mechanisms are in place to bring average Joe citizen up to informed and educated speed. Perhaps this could be accomplished more under a technocracy. But, it certainly isn't happening now nor will there be change until something drastic happens like you said.

__________________

I don't see how there can be post-scarcity anyway, given many critical resources we use for mass production are scarce. Peak Oil, for instance, will kill us when we can no longer afford it the massive extraction costs and production falls drastically.

__________________

Well, I agree with some of the ideas and concepts of Technocracy Inc, but certainly not all, so far, and that's only one version of a Technocracy. There aren't that many accessible resource reserves for other critical things as well. I honestly don't see how you could have mass production for everyone's welfare. What we already produce is barely sustainable.

I agree we could have transitioned; that would have helped the energy crisis, but consumption would still deplete resources. They aren't infinite. I am skeptical of the claim that many critical resources we need aren't actually scarce and that we can have maximum production for everyone to have high welfare. Maybe I am just misunderstanding that.

__________________

It is true that we do not have a "pure" democracy in the ancient Greek sense of the word. As I have noted in a different thread, I do not view plebiscitary democracy as the highest form of democracy, anyway. And neither did the Founders. We do, however, have a very real democracy in the modern sense of the word. More specifically, it is a republic with democratic processes.

Only one party has superdelegates. Personally, I do not like the idea. But I think it is highly unlikely that they will decide the 2008 nomination in the Democratic Party. Notwithstanding Hillary's not-so-subtle attempts to lay the groundwork for their independence from the popularly elected delegates, it is my belief that the majority will vote for the candidate with the greater number of earned delegates, so as not to provoke a serious rebellion (if not a 1968-style riot).

I do believe the electoral college is a good idea, in that it prevents a few major cities from swamping the interests of small, rural states. But that is probably a topic for another discussion.

And I really don't know what you mean by "a corporate run media." CNN leans center-left, MSNBC leans a bit further to the left, and FNC leans center-right. So what is your complaint here?

All US media is centre right, because "left-wing" in America is barely so. It's all organized on the same capitalist model of "we tell you what sells and shape your perception to suit consumption in the future."

That's what happens when you turn news into a commodity like pepsi. Media corporations have no public interest. The only interest is making money by selling sensationalism and what sells. It's not about informing anyone of facts.

__________________

As an American, I will state unapologetically that I do not consult the rest of the world to determine what should qualify as "left-wing." The American perspective on this is all that really matters to me.

(As an aside, I notice that your spelling in the sentence quoted above suggests a British, Canadian, or Australian origin. Are you originally from the UK, Canada, or Australia? If so, that would explain why we have different perspectives on the importance of the American perspective here.)

As an unabashed believer in the superiority of capitalism, I will certainly offer no apologies for the "capitalist model." Do you suppose that the media in socialist societies are more objective? Or in Islamist societies? Or where, exactly?

__________________


Defeating market theocrats since 2001.