Public Opinion Rejects Colbert's Campaign [INFOGRAPHIC]
SodaHead Infographics
2012/01/23 16:41:18
After winning just 1 percent of the vote at the South Carolina primary on Saturday (using Herman Cain as his surrogate), Stephen Colbert's exploratory committee is going to have a lot to think about. But how does he fare with the rest of the country? The truthiness of the matter is, he's got the image to make headlines but it doesn't look like he'll be able to pull a real victory. We polled more than 1,000 SodaHeads on the comedian's pseudo-campaign to find out what they thought. Let's dive.


Top Opinion
-
Happy_Evil_Dude 2012/01/25 09:30:39+6Jesus Christ does no one understand satire? He was never going to run for real, he was just trying to prove a point about the sorry state of electoral laws in the United States. He specifically said he was considering running as "President Of The United States Of South Carolina". How anyone can take that and say "Mmh, this clown wants to be my president eh?" is just mind-boggling.
![Public Opinion Rejects Colbert's Campaign [INFOGRAPHIC] Public Opinion Rejects Colbert's Campaign [INFOGRAPHIC]](http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002412867/colbert-67336878647_xlarge.png)
![Thanksgiving: The Reason for the Season [INFOGRAPHIC] Thanksgiving: The Reason for the Season [INFOGRAPHIC]](http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003329051/thanksgiving-93109325925_crop.png)

![A Fourth of the Population Has Stolen From the Grocery Store [INFOGRAPHIC] A Fourth of the Population Has Stolen From the Grocery Store [INFOGRAPHIC]](http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003194651/stealing-88440771717_crop.png)

















Super-rich individuals such as casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson and his family, not large corporations, are the main force powering the new "super PACs."
Welcome to the conservative utopia, individual money is power. Screw society, let the Rich reign.
One word....Obama. Anyone is eligible now for that office, because it would be an improvement no matter how many times you slice it.
btw: I value the importance of 'protest candidates' and their right to be there. What bothers me is that I see something contemptuous and hardly noble in this.
however,
how does Colbert 'mock' the Republican Candidates in this thing? I still haven't really heard the explanation on that?
Do you see what I'm asking? Is the 'mockery' showing up the idea that a Herman Cain or a Rush Limbaugh will run for Democratic nominations?
What exactly is being mocked?
Two- they are supposed to set aside there personal beliefs and represent the people and not themselves, granted the average iq in the US is only 98 so I guess they do a good job of that.
Then again you highlight a problem with democracy. You get to vote too. :(
- Example: 77% of the people in this State voted a guy who, via his Catholic upbringing believes life begins at conception. He will try and write laws accordingly. HE REPRESENTS THE MAJORITY AS SEEN IN THE RESULTS.
and wow.. now you bring up 'separation of church and state' and what a mess you are. I mean you are just a completely ignorant pretzel of half-witted missing puzzle pieces.
Separation of Church and State IS WHAT PROTECTS US FROM PEOPLE LIKE YOU and the horrible anti-democratic wishes you would like to impose on people. Do you know how that works? It means the government CANNOT tell Churches or religious people what they can or cannot do, who they can elect or what religious views are NOT allowed.
That is just plain scary that you get to vote. Yikes.
You bet I can and they most definitely have the right to vote or write up laws accordingly. That is HOW OUR SYSTEM WORKS.
You are a moron who thinks you get to tell democratically elected representatives they can vote or write laws but remove anything squaring with their fundamental understandings of life. Wow.
I will say it again, the one thing bad about democracy? Anti-democratic idiots like you ALSO get 1 vote too. Which is just plain scary sometimes.
-The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).
-There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind(Federalist No. 63).
By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy. However, there are examples of "pure democracy" at work in the United States today that would probably trouble the Framers of the Constitution if they were still alive to see them. Many states allow for policy questions to be decided directly by the p...
By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy. However, there are examples of "pure democracy" at work in the United States today that would probably trouble the Framers of the Constitution if they were still alive to see them. Many states allow for policy questions to be decided directly by the people by voting on ballot initiatives or referendums. (Initiatives originate with, or are initiated by, the people while referendums originate with, or are referred to the people by, a state's legislative body.) That the Constitution does not provide for national ballot initiatives or referendums is indicative of the Framers' opposition to such mechanisms. They were not confident that the people had the time, wisdom or level-headedness to make complex decisions, such as those that are often presented on ballots on election day.
Writing of the merits of a republican or representative form of government, James Madison observed that one of the most important differences between a democracy and a republic is "the delegation of the government [in a republic] to a small number of citizens elected by the rest." The primary effect of such a scheme, Madison continued, was to:
. . . refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the same purpose (Federalist No. 10).
Later, Madison elaborated on the importance of "refining and enlarging the public views" through a scheme of representation:
There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind(Federalist No. 63).
In the strictest sense of the word, the system of government established by the Constitution was never intended to be a "democracy." This is evident not only in the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance but in the Constitution itself which declares that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" (Article IV, Section 4). Moreover, the scheme of representation and the various mechanisms for selecting representatives established by the Constitution were clearly intended to produce a republic, not a democracy.