Quote Originally Posted by sarbox68

2) I flat out reject your non-partisan perspective. (Sorry! ) Plato had that sh!t right ... our perspectives are all defined by our own personal cave. We can work damn hard to make that cave bigger. But everyone is going to view other people through their own partisan lens. Their own dogma, experience, what they've been taught / encountered locally, cultural and political pre-disposition... that sh!t is the definition of partisan, and everyone brings it to the table. Couple that with limited, partial and mis-information, and your stew likely to have a lot more mystery meat in it than mine.

Oh, and 'rilla? <3 Thanks for splitting the thread bro...

yeah, let me clarify on what I mean about being non-partisan, comment 2:


I wrote a whole argument, then I deleted it, then I wrote a whole 'nother argument, and then deleted it again. I guess the fundamental issue would be peer pressure, and how an outside observer (read= outside-the-snowglobe people ) not affilliated with any of the parties in question is less likely to be affected by peer pressure (any entity who exerts pressure on you to vote for whatever choice) while making a choice.
Now you say everyone brings it (partisanship?) to the table, and that may be true; I mean you are supposed to have a criteria in making a choice.
Of course this outside observer will make a choice based on what he or she personally wants from the candidate, hopefully through proper research of what the candidate brings to the table, but this outside observer is much much less likely to form an opinion based on what somebody else will choose.
To me, that would qualify as being non-partisan.

Breakdown:
-]less likely to vote for a party, more likely to vote for a candidate instead. Yeah, candidates belong to parties, but IMO its a very important distinction.
-]more likely to truly research everything and make a properly informed decision, less likely to make a choice based on what Sue-Ann chose


Also of note is the information available for research: everyone's information available is the same in today's digital age, so it does not matter on which side of the snowglobe you are, the information available to you is the same.
Of course you will also have outside observers who are more likely to form an opinion in an uninformed and frivolous way too, or succcumb to peer pressure anyway, and I fear they may be in the majority. Also, you will encounter outside observers who do not expect or recognize media bias and adjust accordingly.
Thing is, peer pressure could have an effect on their choice given they may see everybody around them sympathetic to a specific candidate too. So, yes, it goes both ways, in favor and against both parties, both inside and outside the snowglobe IMO. I think no matter how much we discuss, we will keep arriving at this fundamental issue every time.



Of course, I may be wrong too, but I think the most accurate term for this is Stalemate.